I began my consulting career 10 years ago, transitioning from a scientific background. Early on, I struggled to adapt to the diverse working styles of clients. Coming from a mindset where problems often had a single “right” answer — like in math — I initially found it challenging to embrace the variability in approaches and expectations.

Over time, I came to understand that aligning my working style with the client’s not only increases effectiveness but also leads to better outcomes. Two contrasting experiences stand out as lessons in achieving this balance.

Client Example 1: Adapting to Strict Procedures

The first experience was with a client from a highly sensitive organization where data confidentiality was paramount. The project manager was meticulous, requiring that every technical decision — no matter how exploratory — be validated with her. There was no room for improvisation or informal sandboxing. This rigid structure clashed with my natural tendency to experiment with solutions before presenting them formally.

Initially, I struggled to work within these constraints, but I recognized that pushing back against the established structure would only hinder progress. Instead, I discussed the situation openly with the project manager, explaining how strict validation requirements could impact timelines. She reassured me that prioritizing procedure over speed was acceptable. This allowed me to shift my focus to delivering high-quality work within their structured framework; while ensuring I wasn’t held accountable for delays inherent to their process.

Client Example 2: Navigating a Lack of Structure

The second project presented the opposite challenge. The client’s environment was laid-back, even chaotic. The project manager was overwhelmed with responsibilities and not technically inclined. Decisions were rarely validated in advance, leaving me uncertain about whether I was overstepping boundaries or inadvertently violating internal procedures. This lack of structure was initially destabilizing — it felt like I was constantly second-guessing my decisions.

However, I soon realised that the absence of structure was an opportunity to take initiative. I proactively proposed and implemented solutions, documenting my decisions to provide transparency and accountability. The project manager appreciated this approach and delegated a significant number of technical decisions to me. By embracing a more assertive role, I maintained momentum, met project deadlines, and established a functional rhythm within the chaotic environment.

Key Takeaway: Adaptability as a Two-Way Street

These experiences taught me that adaptability in consulting is a two-way street. While much of the advice for consultants emphasizes flexibility, it can sometimes feel like the entire burden of change rests on the consultant. I think that effective adaptability involves negotiating clarity on two critical aspects: the pace of progress and the level of ownership you take.

Practical Strategies

To navigate such situations effectively, I find it helpful to set clear expectations early in the project. For example, in the first project, I openly discussed how strict validation processes conflicted with tight deadlines. This conversation allowed us to align on priorities, freeing me to focus on quality without being held accountable for delays. In the second project, clarifying that the client indeed expected me to take ownership of technical decisions helped me drive progress, while ensuring the client remained informed and comfortable with my approach.

Maintaining Balance

Whether or not you are a consultant, I hope this encourages you to stay true to your values while aligning expectations and respecting the unique dynamics of any environment you work in. Achieving this balance not only drives better outcomes but also fosters a sense of confidence and stability as you navigate the complexities of diverse professional landscapes.