If you do the substitution, you get "management consultants," not "management." I think it's a valid statement. Business always needs management, but manageme

If you do the substitution, you get "management consultants," not "management." I think it's a valid statement. Business always needs management, but management consultants are only good for helping a business solve a particular problem or get through a particular change. Then they should get out of the way. Instead, they work their way up somebody's butt and sit there pulling checks, wielding unaccountable power that is inappropriate for their place in the reporting structure. It goes like this: 1. People do what the consultants say because hey, you're supposed to be learning from them. It makes sense. 2. Some recalcitrant people refuse to go along with any changes, and upper management puts out the word: "We're paying good money for these consultants. On my authority, do what they say." This still makes sense. 3. The consultants start meddling in things outside their original brief, just because they think they're smart and want to prove it. People have to live with it, so the consultants are gradually accepted as a generic part of the power landscape. This is the beginning of the pathology. 4. The consultants continue wielding power in a disruptive way as long as they can, because if the organization doesn't need their constant correction, somebody might realize it's time to get rid of them. This is the full-blown pathology: consultants actively disrupting productive work because it's the best way for them to stay employed.