And to add some context, given a couple of lifes ago I was rubbing shoulders with those people:
Please don't go over to either extreme of the spectrum (of opinion).
Those companies make the obscene amounts of money because they do generally _work_. They are like dietary supplements: as long as they don't kill anyone they don't really need to do anything useful to sell well.
So in most cases the outcome is somewhere between "good enough" and "meh", and any occasional great success is appropriately used for marketing purposes.
The "catastrophically bad" cases are rare because they do directly impact their future business opportunities. They try really hard not to make things _worse_.
TL;DR: These companies exist because they do fill a real need ("of doing something without taking responsibility if it doesn't work out") and at the very least they generally do no harm.
Except taking money from whoever hired them. Fine if CEOs of private companies want to lose money, but at least public entities should be forbidden from spending public money into those jokes.
doing something without taking responsibility
Also CEOs tend to get a very high salary because of their "responsibilities", so I don't like the idea that they get the high salary but have a way to not get the responsibilities. Probably they should just not get the indecent salary in the first place.
My personal opinion is that I would very much prefer all those smart and hard-working people be doing _more useful stuff_. So I think we're at the same sentiment here.
As for CEOs of public companies I do not know but my _impression_ still is that those consultancies are usually hired at lower levels - where the "responsibility buyout" is precisely _against_ such a CEO. Sort'a like the old "Nobody was ever fired for buying IBM".
And indeed I think the root is at the top (no pun intended): in most large(er) organization the incentives at the top are such that "having a sustained business" is _the worst possible choice_ - when you have a golden parachute deal it's better for you to literally bankrupt the company than to play it safe and say, ensure all the employees are not only well-treated but also well-compensated.
Mostly for the executive who hired them to be able to say: the very expensive management consultants recommended we do X, Y, Z, so we should do X, Y, Z.
Comments
I don't get how such companies exist. At best they are clowns, at worst criminals. Why would one hire them?
Because what they give you is priceless:
1) If it worked then it's all thanks to your impeccable ability to get the right tools to get the job done
2) If it fizzles out it's all still OK because you've tried best and hired the best consultancy
3) If it goes catastrophically bad you're OK because it is clearly the fault of the consulting company
Basically you buy "heads I win, tails you lose".
And to add some context, given a couple of lifes ago I was rubbing shoulders with those people:
Please don't go over to either extreme of the spectrum (of opinion).
Those companies make the obscene amounts of money because they do generally _work_. They are like dietary supplements: as long as they don't kill anyone they don't really need to do anything useful to sell well.
So in most cases the outcome is somewhere between "good enough" and "meh", and any occasional great success is appropriately used for marketing purposes.
The "catastrophically bad" cases are rare because they do directly impact their future business opportunities. They try really hard not to make things _worse_.
TL;DR: These companies exist because they do fill a real need ("of doing something without taking responsibility if it doesn't work out") and at the very least they generally do no harm.
Except taking money from whoever hired them. Fine if CEOs of private companies want to lose money, but at least public entities should be forbidden from spending public money into those jokes.
Also CEOs tend to get a very high salary because of their "responsibilities", so I don't like the idea that they get the high salary but have a way to not get the responsibilities. Probably they should just not get the indecent salary in the first place.
My personal opinion is that I would very much prefer all those smart and hard-working people be doing _more useful stuff_. So I think we're at the same sentiment here.
As for CEOs of public companies I do not know but my _impression_ still is that those consultancies are usually hired at lower levels - where the "responsibility buyout" is precisely _against_ such a CEO. Sort'a like the old "Nobody was ever fired for buying IBM".
And indeed I think the root is at the top (no pun intended): in most large(er) organization the incentives at the top are such that "having a sustained business" is _the worst possible choice_ - when you have a golden parachute deal it's better for you to literally bankrupt the company than to play it safe and say, ensure all the employees are not only well-treated but also well-compensated.
Never thought about it this way, but yeah, it makes sense to me!
Mostly for the executive who hired them to be able to say: the very expensive management consultants recommended we do X, Y, Z, so we should do X, Y, Z.