Becoming a Leader In Consulting

Mentality shift from 'contributing' to 'company ownership'

Transitioning from 'Individual Contributor' to 'Team Lead'

A theme that appears frequently in performance reviews for new consultants is an assessment of how well the consultant "took ownership" of a deliverable. When a consultant takes ownership, then the consultant's "individual contribution" can be assessed. In this way the concepts of "taking ownership" and "individual contribution" are related. Particularly at the beginning stages of consulting, reviewers want to see exactly what each consultant can deliver.

After a consultant proves to be reliable "individual contributor" the next stage is serving as a "team lead." This entails guiding multiple people to complete a project or multiple components of a project. In this instance, a project can refer to different things: project tailored around a client's business requirements, an initiative, a committee, a proposal, or any task.

People rely on the team lead for leadership and direction. What are the timelines, who does what, and what resources are available to complete the task? The team lead sets the pace, provides guidelines, and answers questions.

Transitioning from 'Team Lead' to 'Company Owner'

After a while, the consultant becomes proficient at being a "Team Lead." Projects may vary in size and complexity, but the consultant learns to anticipate issues or questions that arise.

• We need more people to get this project done!
• How can we accommodate a timeline that keeps shifting?
• How can we craft a solution when there only limited information is available?

The question that the "Team Lead" keeps in mind is "What does it take for this project to succeed?" The consultant becomes resourceful and creative in responding to the myriads of questions that asked.

The next transition pushes the consultant to think in a "Company Ownership" perspective. In the past, there was never an option to not succeed. A project or initiative that had a beginning typically had a scheduled end date. However, in the “Company Ownership” mindset, the orientation differs. Knowing that resources (time, money, staff) are finite, the question becomes "What does it take to grow the company while making the best use of those resources?"

From a project perspective, there still are very few times when a project is withdrawn mid-stream. That is not the point of this article.

The point is a "Company Ownership" mentality is a strategic shift in thinking that assumes that there are choices. Projects, markets, and initiatives are "investments" with choices as to what option(s) should be supported. For example, I have a history of supporting increases of staff training budgets because I believe training allows consultants to learn and it allows the consultancy to provide better client service. However I might think differently with my "Company Ownership" hat. Is more training always better or should we be selective in how we spend those training dollars? What are other uses for those investment dollars? I might switch to a "selective training budget" wearing my "Company Owner" hat which forces me to think of multiple responsibilities (including financial solvency).

Transitioning to a "Company Ownership" mindset forces me to think "What if I owned this company?" What is the best decision (in a given scenario) that best satisfies conflicting demands? Am I willing to be accountable for the opinions that I hold and for the decisions that I make? People's jobs could be affected by my decisions.