Why asking your consultants to be “less consultanty” might be missing the point and how embracing expertise actually creates better outcomes.
If you’ve ever thought, “Can you just be a bit less consultanty?” you’re not alone.
Over the past few months, a couple of clients have said exactly this to the Chickp. team. Sometimes politely. Sometimes with a knowing smile. Occasionally with a mild eye-roll when a diagram appears or when I refer to something as an epic rather than that big thing we need to do.
Consultants have a brand problem.
Somewhere along the way, “consultant” became shorthand for over-complicated language, shiny frameworks with little substance, slides for the sake of slides, and solutions that feel done to a business rather than built with it.
So when someone says “less consultanty”, what they’re often really asking for is:
“Please don’t make this harder than it needs to be. Please don’t talk at us. Please don’t disappear and leave us with something we can’t run.”
All of those are completely reasonable asks.
But asking consultants not to sound or behave like consultants often strips out the very things that make them valuable in the first place. For CFOs, finance leaders, and PE-backed businesses this is a problem.
This blog is about reframing what it really means to work with consultants, why expertise should sound like expertise, and why the right consultants aren’t the enemy, they’re the accelerant!
The Double Standard
Let me ask a slightly cheeky question.
When your finance team talks about accruals, deferred revenue, EBITDA, ROI or working capital cycles, does anyone stop the meeting and say: “Could we be a bit less finance-y, please?”
Probably not and nor should they.
That language exists for a reason. It’s precise, efficient, and widely understood within the discipline. It’s also built on decades of shared learning.
Finance professionals are allowed to use the language of their craft.
So why, when a consultant refers to a user story, an epic, a process map, or a discovery phase, does it suddenly feel indulgent?
I don’t believe the answer is that consultants use specialist language. I believe it’s that too many consultants have historically used language without context, without empathy, and without accountability.
The problem isn’t expertise. It’s detachment.
Tools and Language are the Shortcut
One of the most common triggers for the “less consultanty” feedback is tooling.
Whiteboards. Miro boards. Discovery templates. Heatmaps. Capability models.
To the uninitiated, these can feel like theatre. Like something is happening without anything actually moving.
But when used properly these tools compress years of pattern recognition into hours. They create a shared understanding faster than conversation alone ever can. They surface assumptions (and, crucially, make the challengeable). They even dramatically reduce the risk of building the wrong thing.
In finance terms, they’re risk mitigation mechanisms.
A well-run discovery process is the equivalent of stress-testing a forecast, running scenario analysis, or reconciling before month-end rather than after.
It’s not bureaucracy. It’s prudence.
Why “Just Be Practical” is a Dangerous Request
Another phrase I hear a lot is: “We just want someone practical.”
Again, totally fair, but practical doesn’t mean unstructured.
In fact, the most practical consultants I know are relentlessly structured behind the scenes so that things feel simple on the surface. What CFOs are often reacting against isn’t structure, it’s visible process without visible progress.
Good consultants use frameworks so they don’t reinvent the wheel every time. They use shared language so teams don’t talk past each other and they use tools so decisions are documented, repeatable and easier to revisit when circumstances change.
Bad consultants use those same things as a shield.
The difference isn’t “consultant-ness”, it’s whether the consultant is optimising for outcomes or for appearances.
The Real Cost of De-Expertising your Experts
When organisations ask consultants to dial down their expertise, three things tend to happen:
1. Decisions slow down
Because the shortcuts that come from experience are removed.
2. Ambiguity increases
Because precise language is replaced with vague agreement.
3. Risk quietly creeps back in
Because assumptions go unchallenged in the name of harmony.
For PE-backed businesses in particular this is expensive as time is compressed, value creation plans are aggressive and the margin for rework is thin.
You’re not paying consultants to blend in. You’re paying them to:
- See what you can’t (yet)
- Name what’s uncomfortable
- Bring proven ways of thinking from outside your organisation
If they stop doing that, you’re left with very polite, very costly project managers.
What being “People-First” actually means at Chickp.
This is where Chickp. is different and deliberately so.
Being people-first doesn’t mean abandoning tools, language, or rigour.
It means:
- Explaining why we’re using them
- Translating when needed, without dumbing down
- Inviting challenge rather than hiding behind methodology
- Adapting to the organisation not forcing the organisation to adapt to us
We’ll happily call something an epic but we’ll also explain why it matters, how it connects to value, and what decisions it unlocks.
We won’t stop being consultants. We’ll just be human ones.
A Better Question for CFOs to Ask
Instead of asking your consultants to be less consultanty, try asking:
- Is this helping us make better decisions faster?
- Do we understand the thinking, not just the output?
- Are we being challenged appropriately?
- Could we run this ourselves next time if we had to?
If the answer is no, that’s a consultant problem.
If the answer is yes, let them do what you hired them to do.
In Defence of Consultants (Yes, even the Jargon)
So, in summary, consultants are not the enemy. Bad consulting is.
The solution isn’t to strip away language, tools, or structure. It’s to demand clarity, accountability, humanity, and outcomes.
And maybe (perhaps) to let your consultants say epic without flinching.
After all, you’re not giving up accruals anytime soon.
If you want consultants who bring rigour without ego, structure without suffocation, and expertise without detachment, that’s the work we do at Chickp.
And yes, we’ll still call a P&L a P&L 😊