4 ms·
>First, this is what keeps these companies around. You don’t keep a client by telling them they’re wrong or ignorant. Two, buying the big three name is essentia
by everdrive 4y ago
>First, this is what keeps these companies around. You don’t keep a client by telling them they’re wrong or ignorant. Two, buying the big three name is essentially idea laundering
I completely agree with you, but if everyone knows this, then why does this ploy work?
- hammock 4y ago“Yada yada yada if their job depends on it”
- red-iron-pine 4y agoBecause long term strategic decisions require taking risks, and that means potentially missing out bonuses if it fails, and possibly getting fired. Bringing in consultants essentially gives you the ability to say "we vetted it, and it sounds like a low-risk approach". This means you can sell it to the board, to other exec's, sell it to the rank and file, etc. And if it fails, you can blame it on KPMG or Bain or whoever. "Bain said it was cool" is a perfectly valid excuse. Spending $300k to CYA and protect your $600k bonus is a terrible choice for the company but a fantastically rational choice for an individual executive.
- pc86 4y ago> Spending $300k to CYA and protect your $600k bonus is a terrible choice for the company but a fantastically rational choice for an individual executive. Especially when the $300k isn't your money and might not even be coming out of your department's budget.
- sklargh 4y agoI suspect because many executives want it to work. A benefit of arriving at very senior leadership is reduced personal risk for high-consequence failure. Consultants are part of that upside. One can even avoid unpleasant disagreements with peers simply by hiring an equivalently prestigious firm and positioning the consultants to fight it out.