In every organization that strives to survive and grow, the name “advisor” is seen as a title for wisdom, expertise, and accumulated experience. However, the difference between a true advisor and a formal one is not measured by the number of years or reports, but by their ability to be a fair critical mind that adds value without flattering, corrects without confusing, and saves the organization from itself before saving it from others.
In fact, a true advisor does not stand on the sidelines of decision-making, nor does he become a false witness in administration. His role begins when management stops listening to itself and when the organization needs someone to hold a mirror up to it without distortion. He is not a shadow manager, nor is he an adversary to the executive management, but rather a thinking partner who operates with intellect not position, and with responsibility not self-interest.
One of the most significant positives of having a true advisor is that he lends strategic depth to decisions, reduces improvisation, exposes risks before they occur, and contributes to building an institutional culture based on accountability and learning. Additionally, he protects leadership from isolation and breaks the cycle of “groupthink” that often brings down major institutions. Conversely, the most dangerous risk that may accompany the presence of an advisor is his transformation into a burden if his independence is lost, into a tool for justification if he is subjected to authority, or into a source of disruption if he oversteps his role and interferes in implementation rather than providing guidance.
Upon closer examination, institutional history is full of examples that confirm this equation. Internationally, the Enron experience is a glaring example of the failure of the consulting and oversight system; numerous advisors were found, but they lacked independence and moral courage, resulting in the company collapsing under the weight of closed decisions and silent complicity. On the other hand, the IBM experience shows how explicit strategic consulting contributed to redirecting the company during its crises, when unpopular but necessary advice was given to save the operational model.
Regionally, some transformational experiences in Gulf energy and telecom companies reveal how an independent strategic advisor played a pivotal role in restructuring, building governance, and adjusting the relationship between the owner and management, when given the space to speak the truth. In contrast, other Arab institutions have clearly failed when the advisor became merely a formal figurehead or a political reward, resulting in high-cost, low-impact decisions.
In the Jordanian context, some national institutions have proven that true consulting yields results when linked to local knowledge and understanding of the context, not by copying ready-made models. Conversely, other institutions have struggled when the title “advisor” was used to rotate positions or absorb criticism, resulting in the absence of impact while the title remained.
Therefore, the true advisor is not one who pleases the administration, but one who protects the organization. He doesn’t write what is requested of him, but says what needs to be said at difficult times. He excels in choosing the moment, accuracy of expression, logical sequence of thoughts, and prioritizes the public interest over personal considerations. When the organization understands this role, and grants him independence and respect, the advisor transforms from an administrative cost into a strategic asset. However, when he is stripped of his meaning, he is nothing but a witness to a decline that could have been avoided.
