Solving business problems is programmatic, right? That is, if one follows a specific, prescribed formula, all business problems can be recognized and addressed.

Or would you say that every good solution to a business problem is arrived at via gut instinct? That it is more through nuance and flexibility in the face of ambiguity that success can be achieved?

In our first episode of Season 2, I’m joined by Shashi, Phil and Bill to discuss whether Consulting is more of an Art or a Science.

Hint. We didn’t agree.

We Discuss:

• Is consulting an art or a science?
• When bringing in consultants, should you hold them to the letter of the statement of work, or be flexible as the approach changes?
• What do you do when a client suddenly changes direction after you’ve staffed and planned for a specific statement of work?
• How should an individual consultant navigate between the art and science aspects of consulting?
• What type of problem in the spectrum (art vs science) do you like to solve as a consultant?

Key Highlights:

• Deliverables vs. relationships paradox – Sometimes clients are happy despite receiving poor-quality formal deliverables because the consultant succeeded on the “art side” through strong relationship management and adaptability (02:39-03:00)
• Contractor vs. consultant distinction – Contractors execute known solutions with directive management, while consultants help discover unknown answers through collaboration and expertise in emerging areas (08:40-09:50)
• Partner leadership styles vary – Some partners lead through relationships (dinners, drinks, networking) while others lead as subject matter experts who prescribe solutions rather than seeking client input (03:31-04:18)
• Problem identification is critical – Most failures start with clients not correctly identifying their actual problem, leading consultants to solve the wrong issue entirely (20:50-21:10)
• The art can fail – Unlike science (repeatable processes), art-based consulting involves risk of rejection and requires consultants personally willing to take that risk; not everyone is wired for this uncertainty (28:13-28:35)
• Know your preferred problem type – Individual consultants should understand where they fall on the art-science spectrum to avoid dissatisfaction—some thrive on ambiguity and discovery, others prefer well-defined specifications (27:55-28:13)
• Clients can’t always buy “unknown outcomes” – While artists create without knowing the final product, consulting clients typically won’t buy work unless you can articulate the end result and the process to achieve it (28:56-29:13)

5 Takeaways:

1. Consulting work fundamentally splits into two categories: execution-focused contracting where you already know the solution but need resources, versus strategic consulting where you’re hiring expertise to help discover unknown answers.
2. The most successful consulting engagements often succeed on relationship management and adaptability rather than the formal deliverables outlined in the statement of work, revealing that client satisfaction frequently depends more on the “art” than the “science.”
3. Effective consultants must learn to say “yes, but here’s the trade-off” rather than blindly accepting every client request, as managing expectations and providing honest counsel is more valuable than unconditional agreement.
4. Large corporations have found success by creating small internal strategy consulting teams that define problems and maintain vision while engaging external boutique or large firms for specific execution pieces, rather than outsourcing entire strategic initiatives.
5. Individual consultants should understand their personal position on the art-science spectrum because thriving in ambiguous, discovery-based engagements requires different skills and temperament than executing well-defined, specification-driven work.

Check out the Audio-only version of this episode!
Episode 13 – Audio Only