Why the Classic Consulting Pyramid Fails in a Complex World
A CAS-Informed Take on Arthur Turner’s “Consulting Is More Than Giving Advice”
Arthur Turner’s 1982 article, Consulting Is More Than Giving Advice, is often quoted as a foundational piece on management consulting. It offers a tidy eight-step pyramid of consultant value, moving from “providing information” at the base to the lofty goal of “permanently improving organizational effectiveness” at the top. And, it is still in play today!
But here’s the thing: the pyramid is a mirage in a world that behaves more like a swirling storm than a stack of tidy blocks.
From a Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) perspective, the entire framing of Turner’s consulting hierarchy suffers from a deep and fundamental flaw: it assumes the world is mostly stable, knowable, and linear, with clearly bounded problems waiting for expert solutions. Unfortunately, most organizations don’t live in that kind of world. They operate in dynamic, interdependent environments filled with feedback loops, path dependencies, emergent behaviors, and power dynamics that Turner’s neat hierarchy just doesn’t accommodate.
Let’s unpack the issues.
1. The Pyramid Fallacy: Linear Thinking in a Nonlinear World
Turner’s consulting objectives read like a game of management Jenga: finish the lower steps and only then are you ready to “facilitate learning” or “enhance organizational effectiveness.” But real organizations don’t work like that. In a CAS, you don’t climb a staircase, you surf a shifting terrain.
Organizational effectiveness is not the outcome of implementing steps 1–7. It’s the ongoing, adaptive capacity of a system to evolve in relationship with its environment. That means “learning,” “commitment,” and “effectiveness” aren’t destinations, they’re embedded processes that happen simultaneously, not sequentially. The pyramid metaphor reinforces a myth of control that creates false expectations in both consultants and clients.
2. Diagnosis as Control Theater
Turner rightly acknowledges the diagnostic dance many consultants do to reframe the client's problem. But from a CAS lens, the idea of the problem, singular, definable, and solvable, is already suspect.
In complex systems, what appears to be a problem is usually a signal from the system trying to adapt. Focusing too narrowly on "fixing the issue" without exploring the network of relationships, histories, and patterns that give rise to the issue is like trying to fix a symphony by tuning one violin. The obsession with “root causes” obscures the more valuable work: helping the system become more attuned to its own patterns and adaptive thresholds.
3. Consensus Is Overrated, Conflict Is Data
Turner promotes consensus and commitment as prerequisites for successful consulting. But in complex systems, consensus can be a warning sign, especially if it comes too early. Too much agreement too fast often indicates suppression of dissent, not alignment.
Healthy systems tolerate ambiguity, multiple perspectives, and creative friction. Rather than engineer agreement, consultants should help clients metabolize difference, surfacing tensions, working with paradox, and building relational resilience. That’s not “commitment”; it’s adaptive capacity.
4. Client Learning as a Side Effect? That's the Problem.
Turner minimizes client learning by calling it a “by-product” and cautioning against appearing “presumptuous.” This is where the article shows its age, and its colonial consulting DNA.
From a CAS standpoint, learning isn’t optional, and it’s not just about individuals acquiring new skills. It’s about systems evolving new ways of making sense of themselves and their environments. That means the consulting engagement should begin with learning as a core design feature, not treat it as an accidental bonus or something to hide from the client for fear of bruising egos.
5. The Consultant as Expert? Try Midwife, Mirror, or Disruptor
Turner’s model still casts the consultant as the expert who parachutes in with insight, holds the map, and gradually invites the client into the process. That archetype may have worked in the 1980s, when hierarchy ruled and information was scarce.
But in today’s CAS-informed world, the consultant isn’t the mapmaker, they’re the guide helping the system notice how it's mapping reality in the first place. The best consultants don’t solve the problem. They provoke, nudge, disrupt, and listen for weak signals. They help the system get unstuck, not through recommendations, but through co-sensing, co-framing, and co-evolving.
6. Implementation as Afterthought = Systemic Blindness
Turner raises the important point that many consulting recommendations go unimplemented. But he never asks the deeper CAS-informed question: Why are recommendations so often irrelevant to the actual dynamics of the system?
Because in CAS, implementation isn’t about installing a solution, it’s about shifting patterns of behavior across interacting agents. That requires trust, iteration, and real-time feedback, not a slide deck of best practices. The consulting industry’s fixation on recommendations is a form of epistemic arrogance: it assumes we know what works and just need to apply it. But in complexity, we only find out what works by doing.
7. Organizational Effectiveness Is Not a Deliverable
The idea that a consultant can “permanently improve” effectiveness betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of complexity. There is no final state of effectiveness. It’s not a level you unlock, it’s a capacity a system either has or doesn’t, based on how it relates to uncertainty, emergence, and interdependence.
The best consultants don't “improve” effectiveness; they help systems become more aware of how they respond to change and how they make meaning in the face of it.
Final Thoughts: From Mechanics to Metabolism
Turner’s article offers a window into a time when consulting was primarily about technical expertise, linear solutions, and the illusion of controllable outcomes. But in the complex, chaotic, rapidly shifting environments most organizations now inhabit, that model is outdated.
What’s needed instead is a consulting stance rooted in humility, sensemaking, emergence, and systemic attunement. Not advising. Not fixing. Not performing. Partnering.
Let’s be clear: Turner’s framework still shows up in boardrooms and RFPs. But in today’s world, if we’re not teaching organizations how to learn, adapt, and listen to themselves, we’re not consulting. We’re just contributing to the noise.
Call to Action:
If you’re a board director or executive leader still hiring consultants for answers instead of insight, it’s time to upgrade your model. Complexity doesn’t need more recommendations—it needs better questions, deeper reflection, and systemic co-creation. Let’s build that practice together.
