Comment on the critical difference between training and performance consulting.

        A traditional approach of training has a reactive response to any type of performance issue and always resolves the issue through training. Meanwhile, the approach of performance consulting identifies the unrequired performance and its cause, and has a proactive response to the issue. It partners with managers to resolve the issue which supports the objectives of organizations in an optimal manner. This method provides both non-training and training solutions. Lastly, it is perceived as a strategic partner which resolves an issue in a strategic manner. If there is no improvement then the approach is changed to suit the requirements (Rothwell, Hohne, & King, 2012).

Why is collaborative form of consulting most preferred?

            Collaborative form of consulting is effective and preferred because it makes sure that consultants work in accordance with the standard objectives of professional consultants. It also offers powerful means for determining the actual causes of the problem of clients. It analyzes the issue in an in-depth manner to find the underlying issues. In addition to it, this form of consulting ensures that strategies are flexible, realistic, and relevant during changes. It ensures that long-term plans are created for the problems of clients. Lastly, it makes sure that consistent improvement and learning occur in consulting projects. These are the reasons why the collaborative form of consulting is most effective and preferred (Meng, Yang, Ji, & Wang, 2010).

References of Training and Performance Consulting

Meng, F. J., Yang, S. X., Ji, P., & Wang, Z. H. (2010). Collaborative Strategy Consulting Services Model and Framework for Small and Medium Business in Emerging Market. 2010 6th World Congress on Services, 160-161.

Rothwell, W. J., Hohne, C. K., & King, S. B. (2012). Human performance improvement. . Routledge.