Consulting That Creates Dependency vs. Consulting That Builds Capability

In the previous post, “Will AI Destroy Consulting? A Poorly Framed Question,” we argued that artificial intelligence is not eliminating consulting, but exposing which parts of the traditional model never truly created value.

This article turns to a deeper and more uncomfortable issue: how much of that model has been built not to empower clients, but to keep them dependent.

For decades, the consulting industry has framed long-term client relationships as a sign of trust and success. Multi-year engagements, recurring projects, and ongoing advisory roles were presented as evidence of value delivered.

Yet a growing number of clients are beginning to question a more uncomfortable possibility: what if longevity is not always the result of impact, but of dependency.

The historical logic of dependency

Traditional consulting evolved in environments where information was scarce, analysis was expensive, and organizational capacity was limited. Under those conditions, external expertise filled a real gap.

Over time, however, that gap hardened into a structural relationship. Knowledge accumulated externally. Decision logic remained opaque. Internal teams became consumers of recommendations rather than owners of judgment.

What was once support gradually turned into reliance.

This was not necessarily driven by bad intent. It was the natural outcome of a model that rewarded continuity, complexity, and repeated engagement.

When complexity becomes a feature, not a problem

A subtle shift occurred when complexity stopped being something to reduce and became something to sustain.

Highly tailored frameworks, proprietary methodologies, and ever-expanding scopes of work created an environment where understanding required mediation. The more intricate the solution, the harder it became for organizations to internalize it — and the more likely they were to return for help.

In this context, value was no longer measured by how much clarity remained once the consultants left, but by how indispensable they had become.

That is the economic logic of dependency.

Incentives that quietly reinforce reliance

Dependency is rarely imposed. It is incentivized.

Fee structures based on time and scope expansion reward prolonged involvement. Success metrics tied to utilization favor continuity over closure. Knowledge that remains embedded in presentations rather than systems limits transfer by design.

Over time, these incentives shape behavior on both sides. Consultants learn what is rewarded. Clients adapt to what is offered.

The result is a relationship that can persist even when it no longer serves its original purpose.

What clients are asking for now

Today, client expectations are shifting — not dramatically, but decisively.

Organizations increasingly ask for:

clearer decision logic,

faster paths to autonomy,

transparency in methods and assumptions,

and support that strengthens internal capability rather than replacing it.

This is not a rejection of external expertise. It is a rejection of indefinite reliance.

The most valued advisors are no longer those who stay the longest, but those who make themselves progressively less necessary.

Legitimacy, trust, and the cost of dependence

There is also an ethical dimension to this shift.

When consulting relationships produce dependency, trust erodes — quietly at first, then visibly. Clients begin to question motives. Internal teams disengage. Recommendations are followed formally but resisted informally.

In the long run, dependence does not strengthen legitimacy. It undermines it.

An industry that positions itself as an agent of progress cannot afford to confuse support with capture.

Closing: the measure of real value

The true test of consulting value is not how long the advisor remains involved, but what remains once they leave.

Consulting that builds capability reduces dependency by design. Consulting that creates dependency extends relevance by default.

As clients become more informed, more technological, and more demanding, this distinction is becoming harder to ignore.

The question facing the industry is no longer whether dependency exists —but whether a model built around it can still claim to serve its clients’ best interests.