I am willing to bet they don’t.
15 replies (most recent on top)
My very cynical opinion of consultants is as follows. They are a (very well) paid “expert” to deflect criticism from an executive management team, whose poor decisions led to a consultant needing to be hired in the first place.
Regardless of loyalties, I think most people who have spent more than a month at our bank would admit Truist has issues at the Executive level. We have so many simple, fundamental leadership problems (communication, strategy execution, client satisfaction, personnel, etc.). It seems someone actually trying to improve bank performance would at least give the EM angle a passing thought.
And yet, has anyone seen any evidence that the consultants are engaging in an in-depth evaluation of our executive team? Any comparative metrics of their performance versus peer management teams?
Alternatively, we have seen them happily generating lay-off lists (based on iffy models in my opinion) for those lowly employees with no say in renewing lucrative consulting contracts.
Just ask the IAM team
From my experience the consultants have offered no new ideas. Only ideas we were already doing but because they suggested it we moved up the timeline. Whatever we "save" will be greatly outweighed by their fee
CEO: “How do we make our company more efficient”? Consultant: “break apart this thing you’ve been cobbling together for 150 years under a myriad of leadership regimes and economic cycles, and try this new cool theory I’ve read about that should work better”. “We can’t do that”. “OK, well, we tried. Here’s our bill”.
Of course not. $10’s of millions of dollars and nothing will be sustainable, it’ll tell everyone what we already knew, and leadership still won’t listen because it’s not what they wanted to hear. Expenses stay high, little people will be blamed. Bad behavior continues to be ignored. And bo-m, it’s 2025 and we’re getting bonuses funded at 60%.
No. The consultants leave and the plan turns out to be unworkable. The people who hired the consultants and the consultants themselves have never done the actual work.
If they listened to the people that actually do the work, things would be much better
"Come on @ 1vge+1sUNB9cx you posting that message at 5:30 on Saturday morning?! "
They probably work in Enterprise Technology. Those folks have to work around the clock to fix all the stuff that the cost-saving offshore team is constantly breaking.
Consultants are like professors. Couldn’t hack it in the real world.
Come on @ 1vge+1sUNB9cx you posting that message at 5:30 on Saturday morning?! You the real MVP(troll)!😆
Yes, they consistently increase costs so they can profit which improves their bottom line.
Not in the ten years I’ve been in banking. They do around $8 worth of work and charge enough to add 5 people to a team for eight years.
Consultants work great for what they're for, which is making it appear a company is taking action. As with most complex systems determining whether they improved, hindered or had no effect is enormously difficult, but executives love to offload responsibility so consultants will continue to be an important corporate tool.
The answer is “no”! The problem is that we have an ongoing problem with BCG and they get brought in to do anything and everything for tens of millions of dollars and turn what is already sh---y to a place even shittier. And they’re not gone either, they are very active right now further destroying SunTruist
Consultants have no stake in how well a company does, no motivation to go above and beyond. They do their job and collect a paycheck. Turnover is higher with contingent workers and they normally would have an 18 month ceiling at the bank.
LOL no.
For a more detailed answer, please go watch the "Last Week Tonight" episode about consulting firms.