“We’ve been replaced by Claude”, remarked my colleague dolefully.  And it did seem to be that way.  A shipping company that we had accompanied as consultants for various years, and for whom we had proposed a series of top team workshops during the course of the year, had decided to carry out the first of its workshops.  But instead of working with us, they had decided to work with AI, which had designed their workshop in the time it would have taken us to get to and from the coffee machine.  A wakeup call, indeed.

To try and make sense of what had happened, I did what any right-thinking person would do in the age of AI – I asked Claude themselves what they thought of the situation.  Courteously but firmly, they reminded me that “design work that used to require a senior consultant with 20 years of experience can now be produced in an hour at near-zero cost”.  This senior consultant with 20 years of experience regretfully agreed.  Furthermore, they continued, slightly irritatingly, they were “genuinely faster, cheaper and probably more methodologically consistent than most consultants”.  [1]OK, OK, I get it!

Much has been made of the potential impact of AI on recruiting at the bottom of professional services structures.  The perception that AI can do all the “grunt work” that was until recently the purview of energetic and enthusiastic analysts, such as churning tonnes of data through models or writing a good part of the biblically long PowerPoint decks for which consultants are famous, appears to have contributed to a reduction in junior hires over the last few years[2].  Yet it would seem that even the “senior consultant with 20 years of experience” is not above being replaced.  What’s going on?

The company that had decided to put together their workshop agenda using AI had made a completely rational decision.  Claude had access to the same tools and techniques that we did, as well as to far more human experience than my colleagues’ and my combined 60 years – all more or less instantaneous and all for free.  I would probably have done the same.

And if we understand consultancy in terms of tools, methodology, output (all that output!) then maybe we do have cause for concern.  These days, consultants can’t even use the oft cited (and highly dubious) distinction of being the “smartest in the room”, not with an artificial intelligence in your pocket, ready to spout forth wisdom instantly on any topic at any hour of the day.

But of course, that’s only partially what consulting is.  I thought back to the last meeting that we’d had with the company and got to wondering. 

Firstly, I thought about the agenda itself.  I’m sure it was pretty good, excellent even.  But we humans have an advantage that Claude didn’t when it came to writing the agenda: the context and judgment that’s a product of having worked with this team[3] – and similar teams – for years.  This context and judgement can make the difference between a great agenda, and just the right agenda for this team at this moment.  Of course, somebody could have fed five years’ worth of information into Claude: all the team’s successes and failures, disappointments, grudges, stories, the good relationships and bad, the influencers and the influenced. But, seriously, would they?  Quite apart from time constraints, it’s pretty hard to comment on the system when you’re part of it. 

It’s also worth noting that, counterintuitively, some research suggests that AI can actually reduce levels of innovation in teams, as it goes for an “average” response.  An expert working with AI as a co-intelligence is one thing: that could lead to exciting new options as the two “intelligences” dialogue with and challenge each other.  But a non-expert asking basic questions is likely to get basic answers.  This is a potential problem when you’re talking about developing an event for an experienced team who’ve “seen and done it all”, and have high expectations for something bespoke and original.

And then, once they’re in the conference room: who’s going to find a way to unblock the conversation when they get to a dead end this time?  Who’s going to ensure that the timid but insightful sustainability director contributes?  Who will keep the garrulous IT director in line?  Who will notice, and take action, when they need to drill into a topic that they’re avoiding – and when it’s time to move on? 

That’s partly about the lack, for now, of embodied AI, but it goes way beyond facilitation.  Who will observe the tiny signs that reveal the dynamic within the team, then talk with the CEO after the workshop, and advise her on the kind of conversations she should be having with each of them?  Who will stand beside her when those conversations turn difficult?  Who will provide just the right war story to back up an unpopular decision?

In a recent FT article, BCG’s global People Director, Alicia Pittman, emphasised that her company is putting emphasis on hiring and training for “curiosity, judgement, resilience and teamwork.  Those traits matter even more in an AI-enabled environment”[4].  For now at least, these “human skills” are the exclusive domain of, well, humans.  They were always a critical part of being a consultant, although they often played second fiddle in the perceived hierarchy of consulting skills to rapid synthesis of information, quantitative analysis, clear written communication, technical prowess and sector experience. 

However, it’s becoming clear that consultants need to start refocusing on where humans really make a difference.  There’s an argument that the fact that so much of what was typically valued in consultancy is in the process of being commoditised by AI, is a gift of a fashion to the industry. It allows us to rethink exactly what we offer to clients: not a monster model and a deck full of clever arguments and nice-looking graphs, but real, genuine support to make decisions and effect change in a way that they couldn’t by themselves.

Perhaps in the future, consulting interviews will spend more time testing for leadership experience than for a correct estimate of the number of Smarties eaten per year in Birmingham.  And, starting today, it’s critical for consultancies to develop people with the skills for a changing industry[5]; people who can work with others of every age and position, with influence and gravitas, with political acumen, with empathy and curiosity, with the courage to speak up and ask the right questions.  In an age of technology, it’s time to focus on what makes us human.

The shift, then, isn’t cause for despair — it’s an invitation to get serious about developing the skills that actually define great consulting. That means investing intentionally in the human capabilities that have always mattered most, but that professional development has too often treated as secondary. It means building the kind of judgement, influence, and resilience that only comes through deliberate practice and honest feedback — the work that  Openside have been quietly doing with some of the world’s leading firms for 35 years.

In an age of technology, it’s time to focus on what makes us human.

[1] 1980s Hip Hop, AI and the Future of Consulting

[2] Tarki, A., & Raczynski, J. (2025, October 2). How AI is upending How consulting firms hire talent. Harvard Business Review.

[3] The Hidden Power of Knowledge Transfer in Consulting

[4] Berwick, I. (2026, February 26). Human skills ‘matter even more’ for early consultancy career roles. Financial Times.

[5] The Last Analyst Class… So What?