I'm not really surprised when people have knee jerk reactions to criticism of things they put a lot of work into but I think you need to consider what you're saying here more carefully. My argument is that organizations treat these structures (consultants and coaches) as an excuse not to think deeply about the problem, not to identify realistic goals, not to talk to their people and not to invest in them. You're saying that a good consultant does that, but you're also acknowledging that actually you have absolutely no control over your ability to do that. If the organization doesn't let you stay, you can't do it. If the organization doesn't give you access or listen to your advice, you can't do it.

My point is I like to structure my work as training because it forces my engagement with the organization into a more clearly defined area where I am better able to successfully change things.

I don't think you disagree with me--although you may still prefer a different structure to training--I think you are threatened by the criticism of a professional identity you have a lot invested in. And truth be told, that's fair. The tone and title of this article is deliberately antagonistic. I accept your outrage because I think challenging people is more important that everyone being a fan.