« Recruiting.com's TMP Blog Critique | Main | What's wrong with narrative? »
April 12, 2006
Managing Consultants
Ever had major work done on your home? Work large enough--and expensive enough--to require a general contractor to manage all the subcontractors because you just don't know enough to keep track of all the details?
If so, a show of hands: were you pleased with the results?
Well, I don't see any hands up so I'm going to guess your answer was the same as mine: no, you're not pleased. So if that doesn't make sense for your home--if you're really better off just paying attention and managing the work yourself as best you can--doesn't it make sense not to ask consultants to manage other consultants?
I don't need a show of hands. This is common sense.
Your consultants are loyal to two things: their company, and yours--and in that order. They're interested in a good result for you, of course, but not if it challenges their seat at the table (or, in some cases, their place at the trough). So asking them to manage another consultant's work is a good working definition of "conflict of interest." And when that conflict arises, only the managing consultant wins. You and the "managed consultant" come out behind and probably disappointed--though chances are good you'll never know what you could have had in terms of quality outcome if you'd made a better choice.
What's your alternative? If the project's large enough to require that kind of oversight either free yourself up or get an assigned internal resource dedicated to the work. But for goodness sake, let your consultants do what they're there to do: consult.
Posted by davidkippen at April 12, 2006 12:21 AM