3 ms·

At a consultancy, credentials you can market when "selling" your consultants is part of the job. Depending on the field, a certain level of accredited knowledge

At a consultancy, credentials you can market when "selling" your consultants is part of the job. Depending on the field, a certain level of accredited knowledge (i.e., from a degree, or certification perhaps) is part of how the bill-rate is justified for employees at given levels. We don't have an education lock on certain roles/levels at the company I work for, but we do have roles at certain levels that require a given certification no matter how proficient one is in the specified tech. This isn't a small-brain move that misses the forest of knowledge for the trees of credentials, but a recognition that it will be more challenging to staff that employee at a given level without it.

karaterobot 5y ago
> This isn't a small-brain move that misses the forest of knowledge for the trees of credentials It is a second-order small-brain move: the clients are the ones missing the forest for the trees, while your company is just going with the flow. I get it, my company did the same thing, but in the end it's one of those "how business is done" things that add together to create a culture we all freely admit makes no sense.
- HelloMcFly 5y ago
  I think viewed uncharitably, it makes no sense. But I think it is plenty logical on its own. The reality is my org. - and many like it - have choices. We're not choosing between an incompetent person with a relevant credential and a competent person without one, we're choosing among many competent individuals (as far as we've assessed), and verifiable (marketable) indicators of competence beyond us "vouching" for them is an extremely valuable resource. It may not be ideal for a given person's career, but I don't think it has that much effect on our clients' outcomes. I'm sure there have been exceptions to this, and firms that aren't as confident in the capabilities of their people may suffer more.
Aeolun 5y ago
> part of how the bill-rate is justified for employees at given levels “This guy is absolute garbage, but he has a masters degree, so we charge more for him.”
- sandbags 5y ago
  The industry term is leverage but, fundamentally, yes.

karaterobot 5y ago

> This isn't a small-brain move that misses the forest of knowledge for the trees of credentials It is a second-order small-brain move: the clients are the ones missing the forest for the trees, while your company is just going with the flow. I get it, my company did the same thing, but in the end it's one of those "how business is done" things that add together to create a culture we all freely admit makes no sense.

HelloMcFly 5y ago
I think viewed uncharitably, it makes no sense. But I think it is plenty logical on its own. The reality is my org. - and many like it - have choices. We're not choosing between an incompetent person with a relevant credential and a competent person without one, we're choosing among many competent individuals (as far as we've assessed), and verifiable (marketable) indicators of competence beyond us "vouching" for them is an extremely valuable resource. It may not be ideal for a given person's career, but I don't think it has that much effect on our clients' outcomes. I'm sure there have been exceptions to this, and firms that aren't as confident in the capabilities of their people may suffer more.

Aeolun 5y ago

> part of how the bill-rate is justified for employees at given levels “This guy is absolute garbage, but he has a masters degree, so we charge more for him.”

sandbags 5y ago
The industry term is leverage but, fundamentally, yes.