[darawk]

I think a more fair characterization of that process might be: Controversial decisions require extra convincing to get done. If you know your organization is bloated and you need to downsize by 20%, you could just do it yourself, but then you run the risk of your organization revolting against you for it. If, on the other hand, you hire a consultancy, and they come to the same conclusion, that represents corroborative evidence for your view.

That is to say, another way of looking at this is that tough decisions require extraordinary evidence. If a neutral third party comes to the same conclusion, a cynical way to characterize that is it gives you "cover" to do what you wanted to do anyway. But an equally true way to characterize it is that if you weren't sure before, it allows you to be more confident that that was really the right decision.

If I were going to say, fire 20% of my staff, i'd want a neutral third party to come in and evaluate that decision before I just went off and did it too.

[jaclaz]

>If I were going to say, fire 20% of my staff, i'd want a neutral third party to come in and evaluate that decision before I just went off and did it too.

I think you have a queer idea of "neutral".

Do you call the consultancy firm telling them:

1) I don't know what to do, please tell me what I should do?

2) I know that I have 20% people that I should lay off, what do you think of this?

3) My personnel costs are too high, how can I solve this issue?

Expect as a result:

1) Some bogus advice about marketing and growth AND some apparently good, reasonable, data and very good looking graphics leading to a suggestion to reduce personnel by 10-30%.

2) Some apparently good, reasonable, data and very good looking graphics justifying a reduction of personnel by 20%.

3) Some apparently good, reasonable data and very good loking graphics suggesting to cut personnel by 30%.

[darawk]

You call them and ask them to consult with you about how to make your business or organization more efficient. If their recommendations concur with your already-held beliefs, you implement them. If they disagree with you, maybe you reconsider. That's what I would do, and it's what I assume these people are, for the most part, doing.

[jaclaz]

>You call them and ask them to consult with you about how to make your business or organization more efficient. If their recommendations concur with your already-held beliefs, you implement them. If they disagree with you, maybe you reconsider. That's what I would do, and it's what I assume these people are, for the most part, doing.

Sure, but the point is that you call them becase you believe you have not enough profits (or are losing money).

Now, there are generically speaking three ways to fix that issue:

1) increase the efficiency of the organization (really increasing it) which is something that sometimes is possible, sometimes isn't and anyway needs time and dedication by really expert people and produces - maybe - results in two/three years time or more, and often comes at an additional initial cost (investment in new technologies, machinery, etc.).

2) increase the income (i.e. produce and sell more) which again it is something that sometimes is possible, sometimes isn't and anyway needs time and dedication by really expert people and produces - maybe - results in two/three years time or more, and often comes at an additional initial cost (investment in new technologies, machinery, etc.).

3) a mild reorganization of the current processes AND reducing workforce by 20-30%, which takes little time and produces results immediately or almost immediately.

What they advice is usually #3, mainly because it is "easy" and "fast, and by the time you can see the possible overall long period adverse effects of the "cure" they have been already paid and are happily consulting some other firm.

Mind you it is not that many organization are perfectly efficient and actually very often workforce is larger than really needed, and as well a "spending review" can often solve part of the issue, so - when they propose the 20-30% cut on workforce, and remove each and every possible "fringe benefit", etc. they are not doing anything particularly "wrong", still they will be paid an (usually very high) amount of consulting fees to provide what amounts to some "obvious" measures and confirmation of your intuition/gut feelings.

I.e. all in all very often they are "an excuse" (the consulting firm has determined that ...) for whatever unpleasant you will be doing to your personnel.

[darawk]

You can call it an 'excuse', but you can also call it a corroborating opinion, like I said. If you're going to do something unpleasant, it can be good to get an outside opinion, so you don't do it if it's not actually necessary. Characterizing it as just an "excuse" or "cover" to do what you wanted to is unnecessarily cynical and reductionist. And even if it were true, so what?

[jaclaz]

You can of course classify or characterize it as you wish and like, still you will have spent an (usually awful) amount of money in consulting fees (from a company that isn't going too well) for a "corroborating opinion".

Your company, your money, your freedom to spend it as you prefer.