|
|
A previous post about rates consistently gets hits.
Good news for consultants. The market is picking up.
Maybe bad news for clients that means rates are rising.
Knowledgeable, reasonable clients barely lowered the amount they would pay during our nasty economic streak. So this impacts those who worked a bad environment to their own advantage. Rates are finally moving back to the “consultants get paid a lot more than employees” level.
Here are the signs things have changed (at least for change management consultants):
- Rates are now being posted by third parties (they kept it secret the last two years to pull down the desperate).
- A rate posted yesterday (ridiculously low for what they were asking) had the note, “we absolutely cannot go higher” (and likely they ABSOLUTELY will be waiting a long time to fill the role).
- Low ball rates are sitting on the job sights on a permanent basis- unfilled.
- I have been contacted by third parties (two to three times a week in the last month or so) who quote me the lowball rates, I give them my rate which is usually 30%+ higher, they submit and the client asks for a conversation. That means someone is paying more or losing margin…
- Third party firms are merging. Economy of scale or a tightening market?
- Positions are being reposted 3 to 6 months later. Which means they paid low, got what they paid for and are now searching for a fix (PS senior consultants start charging an arm and a leg for these roles).
- I have been personally contacted months later for roles I refused, because I charged 30% or so more, at the rate I quoted plus built in flexibility (I still turned those down see “fix” above).
- The rates I quote now, very close to the “high” (wages have been depressed for at least 10 years, 30 by some measures) of 2008 have suddenly become reasonable for both direct and third party arrangements.
- Posted rates (rare see bullet one) are rising. An $850 a day rate appeared yesterday (the high so far for posted rates- senior consultants you can charge more than that direct).
- Clients are using consultants to find other consultants. Unfortunately, at least here in California, those clients are still using sourcing/payroll firms to process consultants (a needless expense on the consultant side and often on the client side too).
- Short engagements with a strategic focus are appearing. This one gets a giant cheer from me. Strategy and innovation have really been squashed the last couple of years.
Here is my take on market rates:
I base this on the fact that lower rates make the role reappear (or have the client revisiting the consultants they thought charged too much). If the role appears they likely paid too little and got a junior/less experienced consultant. I will give you converted rates in hourly compensation even though I think that arrangement makes absolutely no sense for consulting. Rates are direct/third party and are California rates (subtracting 10 – 20% seems to fit for Midwest roles). Clients you will notice if you are using the big firms that you are paying a LOT of money for your resources- this is a list for INDEPENDENT consultants.
- Junior consultant (will work mostly on training and communications)= $80/70 hr.
- Mid level consultant (does above and can come in early [for those enlightened clients out there] to build plans and assessments)= $90/85 hr.
- Senior consultant (does above if needed for smaller projects, but usually has other internal and external resources dedicated to those roles)= $110/100 hr.
- Lead consultant (guides above with dedicated resources and plans long term change strategy. Also works to connect projects/programs/initiatives into a seamless work stream)= $130/(should not be third party)/105 hr.
- Guru (I really do not like that word…they can design a Corporate Change Entity, they can do all of the previous if needed, they can teach and mentor someone else to do all of the previous and they are thought leaders [preferably innovative thought leaders] in their field. They are educated, experienced and very empathetic to client wants versus needs)= hard to put a price on this. This arrangement absolutely has to go around procurement processes and be direct. This person can save you a TON of money. They can also help to make others happy (which boosts productivity). Their compensation should be based on the value they will provide (immediately in seeing savings and in the future for dealing with root causes that cost money). If you have to convert that into an hourly rate I would say the range is $130 – 200. The first I would take for a great role with impressive executives. The second would be a value based conversion (and the client is likely still getting an incredible investment on their money). This person works directly with people who make millions of dollars a year (in case your jaw dropped at the yearly conversion- a good consultant can still make high six figures and more, only a few go above that on their own without creating a professional services firm and gaining compensation through others).
The next thing to come up (maybe this is a 2012 prediction) is the reappearance of one and two day internal seminars about change, project management and communications. Those were $5,000+ per day back in 2008. I like to tie them into larger retainer packages for clients for my own work, but they are also good introductions to the consultant, their perspective and their style. And clients, they are an excellent way to start socialization and stakeholder connection!
Rate ranges, of course, can be all over the place. They can be hourly, project, time or value based (the last makes the most sense on both sides- see Alan Weiss). This is an “I have watched and interacted with the market” perspective. Apologies to anyone trying to hide these numbers for gain.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Buyer, CCM, CEO, corporate change management, corporate strategy, engagement, External Consultant, Fees, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, Insights, rates, Value, vision to work
Organizations are beginning to create corporate entities (a 2011 trend) that help to tie together multiple initiatives, programs and projects (many of which go beyond just operational efforts). Progress is in its nascency. This is the emergence of something good for Change Management (and likely even more work for senior practitioners since this is usually done as a grassroots effort and tends to run into its own problems).
This is creating different types of change management roles with different placement spots in the organization and a need for different sets of skills.
The new roles:
- Strategic Change Management
- Tactical Change Management
- Implementary Change Management
- Adoptive (or Supportive or Sustaining) Change Management
Strategic Change Management
This is a high level, both in the organization and for consultant experience and standing, long term-broad view role. Strategic change management deals with the largest, longest term initiatives. This is the kind of role where a consultant is genuinely given permission to reveal root causes for the organizations difficulties. This person should be in the conversations with executives that occur immediately after ideas (ideally the consultant is involved in actual strategy sessions where the ideas appear).
To serve this role well the consultant absolutely should be external. They need 10+ years of experiences in all of our roles. The ability to see things from all angles to understand strategy, implementation, business and people equally well is their competency set. It doesn’t hurt if they also bring to the table training, communication and design (both org. and graphic) knowledge and expertise.
This is the role that would design a high level organization wide change entity. This is true Corporate Change Management.
Tactical Change Management
This is the change management role most people think of when they define a CM role.
Their work is layered over project management. They make the translation from strategy to implementation. There can be multiple CM’s in the organization that represent different areas (internal functions, specific projects etc.).
It is in this role that many senior consultants (because strategic change management is not yet understood and/or accepted) find themselves stuck. Failure that they might see in their change efforts is typically caused by lack of executive connection to the change translation (or even the change itself).
Tactical change management while it should not be, is still a heavy deliverable role. Your hands “get dirty” when you do this work- lots of assessments, communications, training design and meetings (hopefully not consistent written reports although that often happens).
I am beginning to see the absolute necessity for good tactical change management practitioners. It is here that internal CM’s can shine. Even more so if they are supported by the external strategic role.
Implementary Change Management
These are the leaders within the organization that make things happen. They are the organizers, the people working around the globe to translate into sales, action, behavior change and participation at the user level. They are often the testers, the askers, the shoulders-to-cry-on and the mentors for all of the different forms change takes.
This is definitely an internal role- that should be given visibility and responsibility.
Adoptive (or Supportive or Sustaining) Change Management
This also is a new role appearing.
This is the person who stays on after the change hits the milestone called “adoption” or “transformation”. They help to keep stakeholders from falling back to previous patterns, status quo and behaviors. They understand that sustainability has a lot to do with follow through close to the user. Functional executives are crucial partners for this person.
This can be internal or external, there are benefits for both. An internal will likely have a closer connection to the stakeholders and can interpret from the organizations perspective (hopefully the new one created as a result of the change). An external can be invaluable for feeding information back to the strategic CM for consideration moving to the future on other initiatives.
New roles are appearing for change management thanks to some failures of old approaches, new perspectives, better understanding and a few successful organic efforts here and there. Those roles are strategic, tactical, implementary and supportive. Yes, sometimes they are still wrapped up into one role/one person.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, CEO, change awareness, Change Design, change management strategy, External Consultant, Insights, vision to work
As an outsider with a focus on results and solutions, I am often equally puzzled, intrigued, surprised and baffled by little attempts to overcome culture and structure.
It is the little things that jump out at me.
Corporate Branding
I have seen every trick in the book to try to overcome the ridiculous title bar in PowerPoint templates. (Thankfully a lot of true presentations outside the corporate world do not use templates- they actually focus on delivering content). The list: little breadcrumb things just above the title bar, the same around the edges, content that creeps its way into the template with font at an unreadable 6 or so, manipulating the title bar with colors or long titles to just barely satisfy branding.
I find this comical because it is a pitiful cry from every employee that attempts it to scream, “stop trying to brand to me- I am an employee.”. The response from corporate branding is always, copyright, labeling, it might get out somewhere, intellectual property (really, PowerPoint?) etc.
My favorite tweak now is drop shadows, on images, blocks of text, titles etc. Some of them look fantastic and really make the content have a little flair (which is completely absent from all the corporate templates). I have never seen drop shadows listed as legitimate in an internal corporate standards manual.
All those rules and regulations in those manuals create culture (staid, boring and with very little leeway, to say the least ability to truly deliver content).
Internal Power Structures
“Well if we are going to try to do that we might want to talk to, blank person, first”, them.
“Or we could just call or set up a meeting with the exact person to make the decision”, me.
“Oh no we NEVER do that”, them.
“Could we just ask, blank decision maker? It seems like a really good idea”, little attempt-er.
There are little attempts to get around cultural internal power structures (and the formal set in stone kind) all the time. Usually it is done by small little groups, but every once in awhile by an individual (usually someone new who might be able to get away with it by pleading naïve if it backfires).
Media and communication
The voice-mailer keeps trying to change the e-mailer. The phone caller gets upset when someone does not pick up the phone. The in person types show up. Some insist on formal communication and “professionalism”, others want life (which includes work) to be a little less stringent. The little attempts to tweak come from all sides. Side note: which has led to manuals of rules leading me to believe the “formals” will always win out.
The walls, the rules, the formality, the approvals, all serve to slow down change and growth. Yes there may be some who think these things “control” growth. I think it is interesting (and refreshing) to watch people either give in or try little tweaks to attempt small change.
Technorati Tags: Communication, Communications, Examples, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, Insights, stakeholders
A question was posted on Linkedin about how to assess Actual versus Desired states. My answer:
Present to gap to future or as-is to to be or actual versus desired state perspectives and thinking lead you to compare your end state to status quo with every thought.
You are better off thinking in terms of end states and working back to see what current things fit into the new scenario. What does not needs to be addressed in some way (likely with compassion and understanding).
Many (especially big), if not most, change is not the same in the end state as the current. It is apples to oranges. When it really IS close to the same (I think it takes an outside viewpoint to decide this) then you can compare through benefits of the new.
The answer to the question, with a change of perspective, is to look for the benefits- functionality, practicality, efficiency, cost savings, simplicity, etc..
With my current initiative I have pushed (it was pretty easy because they were already doing this without knowing it) an end state way of thinking. This positive and effective perspective is moving out quickly in waves of understanding.
If I know the change makes sense at some level then I can imagine an end state (for myself or the organization). With that I can figure out what I carry into that scenario. THEN I can evaluate what gets left behind.
I picture moving, looking back at the last stray things on the floor and leaving…
Technorati Tags: End State, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, Insights, vision to work
I get this question from mid level managers, internal communication people, third paryt sourcing firms and other consultants. On the surface it seems like a reasonable request. In reality it is irrelevant. And if your consultant disagrees you might want to ask them a few questions to gauge their approach. If you are asking because you honestly do not understand what CM is and how it plays out I will cut you slack, but you still are asking the wrong question.
- Plans in general
- Change Management as a predetermined plan
- How CM is viewed
- What it really should be
- The answer
Plans in general
The ultimate in plans that could be shown to someone is the project plan- both a plan and a timeline. If someone showed you one of those plans though what would it tell you? Phases, tasks, expected (and completed if an old project) and completed timeframes maybe a few other nitpicky tidbits. Would you know whether it was theirs or someone else’s, straight off the web perhaps?
Maybe it will tell you a little about the consultants talent and expertise. But didn’t you get a resume or a bio?
Plans are interesting to look at, reading for curiosity, but not representative in any way of your initiative. And, frankly (if you had not thought of this) only worthwhile if they are one from your competitor. That would, of course, be scrubbed to invisible by the consultant.
Change Management as a predetermined plan
Digging deeper and getting sillier is to ask for a change management plan. These look a lot like the plans from above with CM components instead of Project Management components. Those who whip out their plans (and frankly the clients who think that will illustrate good, senior change management) are looking at this with blinders. It is impossible to have a predetermined plan that someone can pull out of a portfolio. This is not graphic arts.
In fairness there may be a version that illustrates phases of CM within project streams and there may be a generic high level version that illustrates CM components. If the question is out of curiosity then generic might satisfy.
If your consultant or firm is anxious to show you and oh so happy you asked (look at the gleam in their eyes) you might want to consider a little more screening.
How CM is viewed
As I have said before CM is not project management. A version of CM, the kind that falls under the bigger umbrella of Corporate Change Management and/or enterprise change management glides along with PM. Without the higher level support, especially with multiple programs running horizontal and transformational, that type of CM has a very high failure rate.
If you are only doing the layered kind of CM the question makes sense (a little bit). What would be better is to show them a sample timeline of yours and ask them to layer over change components and activities and heaven forbid deliverables too.
What it (CM) really should be
A lot of in and out within the timeline. A constant presence early, throughout, at the end and as a looping mechanism. A method for connecting ideas and the work of people. A way to make end states clear and accessible. A conduit for collaboration and communication.
So the “plan” has early interaction to define end states, gather resources and estimate competencies. It has early connection in the gathering of that information with leaders, subject matter experts, naysayers and cheerleaders. It has a big fat project timeline (with a lot of potential branching streams of work). The big fat timelines look a lot like PM except they are people focused. At the end it has measurement to be fed to the next change process.
Maybe that is the plan you are looking for with the question?
The answer
No. Because, as you can see, it really misses the point, it probably infringes on previous client confidentiality, it may be insulting (remember you have the resume and the bio) and instantly producing the answer misses the first/best chance to illustrate what change management SHOULD be about.
Since I get this question so much I have begun to put together a generic picture (although my Vision to Work site already has methodology and a model and a timeline) of what this might look like from the questioners eyes. With that I can make some translations…
The question, “do you have a sample change management plan you can show me” illustrates a certain perspective from the questioner (or, fairly, perhaps just curiosity) and is an excellent first chance to explain what CM should be. Hint: the explanation does not include a sample plan.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, Buyer, CCM, change awareness, Change Design, change management, External Consultant, Insights
Credit for this list goes to Gail Severini.
It sums up thousands of words, hundreds of dialogues, most of my efforts and and a lot of frustration in languaging.
- Few practitioners in any domain have a common interpretation- one obvious example: Change Management in IT can be defined as tracking changes to defined scope, we call this Change Control in our parlance.
- Many business professionals consider it "the management of change" generally.
- Many HR practitioners consider it to be people change management.
- Many trainers think it can be "trained" .
- Many consultants think it can be "done", scoped as tasks that get delivered.
- Many speakers consider it "leadership".
- Many project managers believe it falls inside of their role.
- Some consider it primarily (perhaps exclusively) "communications" and "training".
“Our own definition incorporates much of the above (except "Change Control") so as to more effectively help organizations realize the promises made in Business Cases for Change, i.e. it includes HR and several other domains.
BTW it is relevant to note that different types of change require ‘different’ applications of Change Management. It is conceivable that any of the above could be a right answer to a particular situation but none in isolation apply to every situation and even in aggregate these are radically insufficient to achieve transformational change.” Gail Severini Change Thought Leader http://gailseverini.wordpress.com/
Kudos Gail!
And my follow up, borrowed from her list, “We do not need Change Management”
Technorati Tags: change awareness, change management, corporate change management, Gail Severini, Garrett Gitchell, Insights, vision to work
Readership of my blog is highlighting some interesting patterns, possibly revealing new trends and illustrating subtle shifts in focus. If you are waiting patiently (or otherwise) for the economy to pick up this might be uplifting for you. Thanks to a ten year anniversary of my firm I am evaluating, redoing (web site) and analyzing my contribution, the view from the outside and the interaction that creates. Last night was a trip down memory lane.
First caveats- what gets read on a blog is determined by searches, reader interest and marketing by the blogger. For myself topics often come from high readership in certain areas, popular search terms and an attempt to get as specific as possible in pinpointed spots. In other words the blogger may, myself included, be pulled into shifts in the topics they cover. What is illustrative though is the hits for past blog posts. For blogging there is the pull to the site and there is the now-I-want-to-dig-deeper-because-that-was-interesting, saturation of content. Enough caveating…
Patterns
Are an important aspect of change management. Skilled CM practitioners are good at seeing connections others do not. Really skilled CM sees the patterns in those connections and figures out a way to use that advantageously to get to end states. I see patterns around traditional approaches to work (linear, project oriented, task based) and the patchwork of perspectives and interest in a systems/spatial view of the interaction of people, business and work from reads of posts.
Trends
There is a trend toward internal change leader roles. At the same time there is a trend toward organic change. The economy has to be the reason. Nothing much long term is happening in organizations which makes the work of individuals less significant, which pushes individuals to go it on their own. Once they start that, senior leadership tries to get a handle on it by creating roles (“Director of Change Management) which they have control over (through the performance system first and the reporting structure second).
Another trend is a curiosity about the different models presented out there about change and leadership and a willingness to question the effects (and perspective) of the historic change gurus. The digging deeper pattern is touching posts that question historic approaches.
Subtle Shifts
This is interesting.
In the last month or so there has been a distinct shift to posts that talk about C level and senior leadership connection to change along with the role of the external consultant (especially the trusted advisor role). I have no way of knowing if it is executives themselves who are browsing, curious executive assistants, or those who interact with the executives (consultants, internals etc.). It almost does not matter (although of course I would love to know), it is the fact that the role of the leader is suddenly significant to someone searching.
I am guessing that is a sign that the money sitting in the coffers is close to getting released.
Just as significant is a move toward posts that question how to start, how to win quick and how to integrate internal and external.
And to complete the triangle there is an uptick in the hits to posts about communication, interaction and collaboration.
So we have the senior level perspective of how to organize change, the consulting level of how to orchestrate change and the work level of how to effect change.
If you have time to dig deeper here are the top posts (so far I am far from done) from Horizontal Change Management:
Organic change (number one since the day it was posted)
Trusted Advisor
Quick Wins
Do it yourself Change Management
First steps
Trend
Help yourself to the other 239. And Thank You. Always remember the thank you’s.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CEO, change management, change management consultant, change management strategy, executive communications, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, Insights, vision to work
Change is always about action. Or for the historical, resistance approaches, inaction.
For action to happen there must be some stimulus that gets it started and keeps it going. The trigger/switch at the individual level is motivation. That foundation out of the way, who is in charge of the triggers?
The Individual
You would think it would start here. The individual most likely assumes it will start somewhere else. When an individual has chosen to do something on their own, say find a job, they are certainly responsible for motivation. They will feed that with the carrots and sticks of different opportunities. But when an individual is expected to do something they relinquish control of motivation.
The Boss
Which brings us to the first level leaders. They are the closest to core motivational action. They have the chance to effect action. Unfortunately they are the bosses- as my kids say, “stop bossing me around”. Doubly unfortunate is the fact that they are also individuals. They are saddled with the need to both act and be responsible for action. With so much action on the radar it is easy to forget that action requires motivation.
The Mid Level Manager
It is here that the carrots and sticks are stacked, measured, bargained for and grouped. Since carrots and sticks are a fairly weak motivator, force and coercion are often chosen as alternatives. So now we have an individual who is also a boss delivering blows and wishing they could somehow satisfy everyone- which would probably increase motivation and therefore the right actions.
The Acronym Leaders
At this level you get your title shortened, from seven and eight letters (and more) to 2- VP. Not only must motivation at an individual level (which of course includes the VP) be considered, but there is now an invisible core energy centered around function (read skill, focus and a certain kind of specific motivation) that has a powerful action/inaction lever. Competing motivators and competing actions (or not) appear. The more this person takes charge of functional motivators the more they tend to run head-on into disparate organizational motivators- especially if they are wrapped up in a change package.
Enter the Figureheads
SVP’s.
Their idea of individual now means something completely different. Their understanding of motivators has been tarnished by the rise through the other levels. My favorite motivator- make this make sense- has lost its importance next to, “here is the list make it happen”. The SVP’s have a confusing list of competing interests, all of our categories, plus functions in general, sometimes the combination of functions (who do not always get along- think sales and marketing), the board (since many of them sit there), which means shareholders (a category of individuals that has a serious, often detrimental effect on motivation and action)…
Which leads to the Founder/CEO/Evangelist
It is just as easy to say they are in charge of motivation as it is to say the same of the individuals. For both you might just be right. While this individual (mixing categories again) has the weight of the world on their shoulders they also have all the potential for motivation that can create both action and the motivation to act. They can guide systems, processes, structure and rewards. They can acknowledge (hint- biggest motivator for action), stir collaboration, mediate disputes and discrepancies and bring in the tools and resources to motivate worthwhile action (another hint- see make sense above).
We might have to call it a tie.
In the hierarchical structure, horizontal/matrixed or not, the top person is ultimately, on paper, in charge of motivation. In a democratic, each-person-is-a-shining-light culture, the individual is in charge of every action (not necessarily responsible, just in charge). So it is a tie. Since each person is an individual tie broken.
Which creates a nasty circular looped argument for change management to focus on the individual in terms of action. Search “change management” and you will find approaches that slot right in.
Motivation requires an input, which creates energy to stimulate action. Skip the input (makes sense is one) and go straight to the energy (urgency?) and you get…an equal and opposite reaction.
Approaches to action/change that look at the organizations world from an individual stakeholder perspective back at all the sticks, all the carrots, all of our categories and all of the other angles that influence motivated action (the best kind for change, read “Champions”) …work.
Those approaches create Vision to Work… for a change.
(couldn’t resist a plug )
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CCM, CEO, change awareness, change failure, change management, change management consultant, End State, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, Insights, resistance to change, vision to work
High level change management has two or three spots in the timeline/process where I always feel it is essential to call a conference room late-morning-into-lunch meeting to wrap our arms around the big picture. I do not take forcing the invite lightly. One of the reasons I can be bold enough to take a chunk of first or second horizontal executive time is that an interesting thing always happens…something new, something potentially “viral” (in a good way), something specific to the client organization appears. It appears in the form of a new word (languaging at its core) a diagram, chart or picture.
One of those meetings (4 hours long) at a Fortune 50 firm created all of the above- a chart, a diagram and a picture. It was a picture that bore a striking resemblance to a camel. “It looks like we drew a camel”, I said on our sandwich break… that connection, that potential analogy, that unique to that organization picture, was all it took to begin creating a model. You might call that the second step of languaging.
The third step, now I hear a year later, after an all hands presentation by the client, was a wildfire spread of the analogy to different parts of the company around the world. Which has since morphed into functional and regional interpretations of the camel analogy, chart, picture and model.
It is nice that a camel can go a long time without water, can stand extremes of heat and has a face that takes a little time getting used to. All great languaging leverage points. Those up and down humps are also helpful to illustrate passage of time, levels of effort and participation. Carry that a little farther and you could say certain parts of the camel are better at carrying a heavy load (and certain camels are stronger).
This type of analogy languaging has happened a couple of time with clients… Maybe we should count them as deliverables…
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, change communications, change excercise, change management consultant, Communications, Executive, executive communications, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, Insights, Value, vision to work
Contracting between the actual owner of the change and the external CM practitioner is a crucial piece of the foundation for success. That contract- both the formal written version and the informal initial interaction- lays out expectations, introduces the client to a new and better understanding of the change process and glues the owner to the practitioner in a people and business relationship.
The insertion of anything in the middle of this business and person to person relationship is always detrimental.
Some reasons-
Third parties want to “own” the relationship- their definition of ownership is revenue based. Their way to protect that is to always insert themselves between the consultant and the client. And that helps Who?
Third parties skim the budget dollars. Direct contracts are at or less than those with a third party. Experienced consultants know that. So you can either save (by splitting the difference) or you can feel good about compensating the talent that is tied to your end states rather than burning dollars on overhead.
By using a third party you turn consulting into a commodity. Commodities have a direct tie to pricing. So the consultant gets a direct offer from another client at 50% and you assume they will stay? You, as a client, chose to use a third party so you have broken the ethical connection. As you can imagine consultants feel very little tie to the third party firms…
Third parties (no matter what they say) do not “know” your business. I have interacted with recruiters, staffing firms that think they are somehow consulting, consulting firms that somehow became staffing firms (unbeknown to them), internal contracted recruiters and internal recruiters. Except for the last one (and maybe the penultimate) they “knew” what they needed, but did not understand the whole picture (as in you within this initiative and the consultant and what they do and provide) . If I were a client paying upwards of 50% for this work I would have huge expectations for the “relationship”.
They do not find your talent faster. If a consultant has a LinkedIn profile you can find them with a phone call. And you get the added plus of relationship building right from the start.
They certainly do not find the best. Third party work for the best consultants is always fill-in. Because of the compensation difference between third party and direct they will be focusing how to fill in the missing revenue.
This is an important post because there is a trend to using more and more procurement type situations for true consulting. I have had to go through the dance (and waste a lot of precious change management time) a couple of times for high level roles because the client organization insisted on it. Judging by my own experience this is an area where there should be some loud shouting from clients and consultants.
The contracting relationship, the core of the process, is being sanded down and it is having an effect on implementation.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, CEO, change management consultant, engagement, External Consultant, Fees, Garrett Gitchell, Gate Keeper, Insights, Value, vision to work
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
