If everyone knows you're just hiring them to cover your own ass why does anyone go along with it?
Pure corporate laziness and cowardice supports the entire MBB Market Cap?
Subjective value: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-world-of-consulting-full-of-bul...
Merge with company N — terrific synergies!
Ten years later: spin out the N business — lots of value to be unlocked!
Or like HBO Max which became Max and now has become HBO Max again. Tremendous opportunity for brand consultants.
when companies hire 300 consultants its weird, but hiring someone who specializes in boilers is not weird.
I don't think I've ever met anyone in the business who thought they were doing what it says on the tin. This is a story you will hear over and over again: "The MD went and sold the project, but now a bunch of graduates are tasked with helping the company". I know someone who was advising a central bank, aged 22.
At best, the young consultants tell the company what they wanted to hear, and use the report as their excuse to do what they were going to do anyway.
You also have to wonder how much their public facing advice actually is based on experience, rather than being advertising. You often get these dressed-up white papers and pseudo-academic articles talking about some aspect of business coming from these firms.
I know a young consultant who, while consulting for a company during an internship (place by a big consulting company), saved the client millions in shipping costs.
Do you find that, say, the ECB did a particularly stellar job with the Euro? A currency that's in trouble since it was created? (do not forget that Greece already partially defaulted on its public debt).
When I hear someone like Christine Lagarde speak she doesn't strike me as someone particularly smart: just a regular politician doing what politicians do best (i.e. aim for well paying jobs). Typical french political career: we're not exactly talking about rocket scientist here (despite what mainstream media shall write about her).
I'm pretty sure a smart 22 y/o can be helpful.
The amount of hierarchy and peer review is extensive and apprenticeship was core to my experience in multiple consultancies. One might say post-covid, in a pro-hybrid world, this has been hard. Still, as a new hire couldn't introduce myself to a group of clients without sharing my intro with the associate partner first and getting notes on my literal 3 sentence bio and then feedback afterwards. Every deck I've ever presented has been through multiple hands above and below me in the hierarchy. That 22 year old usually if not always has had a discussion, notes, notes reviewed, questions listed that need answers etc.
I was a consultant for years at a Big4 and I can personally attest to a lot of the stuff I was producing as a 22 year old going straight to the client leadership with zero oversight or review from my higher ups. Whether something got extensive quality checks was dependent on the type of work, notoriety of the client, and of course personal management styles of the partners involved.
In several of my projects, nobody on the team had experience with a particular topic, including the senior management, but the client was all told we did. The juniors on the project were then expected to put together product and deliver it, and none of it was reviewed by the higher ups (not like they had any expertise in it to provide feedback anyway).
The best “consultants” that actually consult are typically sole proprietorships that is just some semi-retired person truly an expert at something that’s offering up temporary help at a thing they just enjoy doing and making some $ on the side. Ironically the big firms have very few of these true experts floating around.
Sounds like any company ever. Or even government (did you watch the show Diplomat?)
>The best “consultants” that actually consult are typically sole proprietorships that is just some semi-retired person truly an expert at something that’s offering up temporary help
Ibid
1. Designated Teller of Hard Truths. I operated outside each client's organizational hierarchy and internal factions. By design, I was expendable and not seen as having a particular bias or “dog in the hunt.” That made it easier to say the difficult things that needed saying. E.g. "Your product...is not good and not competitive." "Competitor X is eating your lunch because A, B, and C. You need to get your act together and admit that those are important issues."
2. Bringer of News from the Outside World. Large organizations become exceptionally insular and self-referential. Everyone inside has to speak the house jargon and more-or-less toe the company line. I could break that spell, bringing in new concepts, perspectives, language, and attitudes. Over the years as a tech analyst, I introduced object-oriented programming, CAD/CAM/CAE, distributed computing, Unix, “Big Iron Unix,” the Internet, grid and clustered computing, web services, standardization, buy-not-build strategies, Linux and open source, virtualization, automated provisioning and orchestration, cloud computing, blade servers, scale-out architectures, and DevOps. Many of these were initially unfamiliar or viewed with disbelief and hostility. I also was a conduit for shifting customer expectations and appetites, market attitudes, and cultural vibes—offering a “voice of the customer” or “voice of partners” when internal teams wouldn't otherwise get a clean, unfiltered read on what was happening in the world outside their walls.
3. Family Counselor. Surprisingly often, I told organizations what other people inside the same organization were thinking, saying, or doing (and what customers or partners thought of that). The degree of insularity, siloing, and parochialism in large organizations is hard to overstate. I was almost like a counselor, helping internal teams see, understand, and appreciate their peers, and put what they were doing into a larger perspective that would have otherwise been overlooked.
I did a lot of other things, but these were my largest, most systematic, and most recurring patterns of "adding value."
In many large companies, there are non-aggression pacts. “I don’t air your dirty laundry so you don’t air mine.”
The best consultants comment on the Emperor’s wardrobe, or lack thereof. And they do it in a way that makes everyone pleased that the logjam is released. And they can only get away with it by being temporary.
And for all the complaining of consultant bill rates, independent consultants have a lot of overhead to cover. (Sales, taxes, insurance, downtime, legal…)
I consulted for about 10 years and enjoyed building stuff, but I didn’t like how the key metric was “is the client happy? will they extend?” And frequently the client is happy with what is not best.
Now I strive to work in organizations that don’t use or rely on consultants very much. I actually think a health metric for organizations is having low levels of consultants.
I agree with all that :-)
Might just add that you can make time to do things that just aren't on the day-to-day calendars of employees.
Bringer of news from your own employees - "I had no idea we were setting prices by just adding 70% to each item's cost, regardless of competition or inventory level or a new version about to obsolete the one that already has six years of supply"
Explainer of things that should be obvious - "95% of transactions generated by Facebook ads lose money and the DC is already at capacity filling unprofitable orders, so spending even more on Facebook ads is not going to fix your cash flow problem"
As a small time consultant, as a side hussle, I tell my customers that their complete website like an LMS (learning management system) system cannot be done for $1000 on Upwork.
Many organizations, especially large ones, are very slow at making decisions, even if they ultimately make the right ones. Bringing in people outside the hierarchy to synthesize a great deal of info from across the org, and give upper management the insight to make a decision quickly (and, depending on the engagement and the firm, also implement it) is very often worth the bill at the end.
I will not pretend all of the work we do is 100% the most urgent work all of the time, but I have helped make the sausage for a number of years now, and despite the usual disparaging comments in this thread, it really is often an intellectually rewarding environment where you work with smart colleagues and help people solve real problems.
The amount of filtering of information going on throughout several layers of management is insane. People just keeping their heads down and not forwarding important information because it will affect short-term results/workload is insane in large companies.
IMO every large company should have dedicated people conducting _actual_ interviews with all employees regularly, outside the normal chain of command. Not that bullshit anonymous peer assessment crap. There is no reason companies need to pay external consultants crazy amounts of money for this kind of service.
By the way, the other 20% is usually just applying some common sense and/or industry best practices to the problems detected on the 80% part.
Yes, it was expensive but it kept the company afloat/independent for a few years longer which is about all you can ask.
>There is no reason companies need to pay external consultants crazy amounts of money for this kind of service.
I think there's always a degree of suspicion that the person from internal audit or HR can really be trusted vs. an external consultant.
When I did software consulting, I was basically a decent "modern" web dev brought into crusty old companies to bring some new perspective and approach. I'd help with some project direction and initial implementation and try to get a team up to speed to continue the work. I typically embedded as part of the team for a while and did plenty of hands-on design, coding, and troubleshooting work right alongside.
But this was just a small consulting shop, not one of the big "strategic" consultancies. Very different worlds.
Snide internet comments are once again wrong...
"Consulting is a job laundering program. We use the allure of travel points, prestige, and a six figure income to match some of our country's best and brightest minds to work on capitalism's most banal problems."
What 21 year old Stanford grad would want to work in the back office of a paper mill in Ohio? Sure, sure, but if we told them, instead, they were working for a Big 4 Consulting firm? :)
What happens if a consultant really solves the problem they have been tasked with? The hiring company no longer needs the consultant.
Consultants aren't interested in solving problems, it goes against their income stream. And so it goes.
ausbah•6mo ago
bitwize•6mo ago
bigmattystyles•6mo ago