Arguments that William Erchul (1999) presented in response to my comprehensive literature review (Gutkin, 1999) of collaborative versus directive consultation are considered. Critical points of agreement (the distinction between collaborative and directive consultation is a “false dichotomy”), disagreement (suggestions to rely exclusively on “scientific” definitions while ignoring the “daily” meanings of research terminology), and partial agreement (selected aspects of five “consistent findings” pertaining to consultant and consultee leadership behaviors that I delineated in my prior article) are identified and analyzed. An expanded model of “rapprochement” is presented in response to Erchul's recommendation to incorporate explicitly the dyadic elements of consultation interactions. Additional issues pertaining to terminology and to interpersonal influence and power, and a rationale for singling out Erchul's seminal research investigations are discussed. It is hoped that this paper, in conjunction with my original literature review and Erchul's response, will help to advance our understanding of relational behaviors pertaining to school-based consultation.