Employee Vs Consultants

Employees Vs. Consultants

Approximately two years ago, a consulting company was hired by our management team to evaluate the tools that we use on a day-to-day basis to monitor the network. At first the consultants went about their day gathering information concerning the tools and the day-to-day operation thereof. The consultants prepared a report that was prepared that that should have dealt with how we can better manage our tools and integrate many of the overlaps associated with multiple tools. However, this was not the case. Instead the consultants created a report that dealt less with the tools and more with the group and how they thought individuals performed. Management assured us that the report was not a reflection of the individuals, but a reflection of where the group is in relation to their respective jobs. Although the reassurance was made, management acted on the report as if credibility of the writer was without question.

The head of the consultant company was friends with the director of the group. The consultant company was also a startup and needed a client in which to build their resume. This is where the problems began. From the standpoint of the employees, we felt that the consultant company wrote the report downplaying the knowledge and skills of the employees to get a foothold in the company under the pretense that they will fill in the gaps where the employees fell short. The next course of events gave further proof that management has indeed acted on the guidelines of the report. We, the employees, found out that the head of the consultant company used to work for one of our major software vendor. He had the inside track on when the company was going to make upgrades to their software. With this information, he finagled his way with management to allow them to do the upgrades. Normally the employees who know all the quirks of the current software configuration do software upgrades, but instead management gave that responsibility to the consultants.

As time goes on, we the employees noticed that an increasing amount of our day-to-day tasks were being handed over to the consultants and mundane tasks were given to the employees. Logically by comparing the current atmosphere of the group and stringing the together all the events leading up to the present, it is apparent that the consultant company was successful in their quest to undermine the role of the employees. It was also apparent that a lot of persuasion was used to shake the trust that management have in the employees. The consultants was observed going to lunch with upper management on a regular basis as well as cajoling management with cynical gestures. The employees started a little persuasion of their own by complaining openly and in writing to management expressing their disgust with the handling of the situation.

The consultants on the other hand see things in a different manner. Their take on the situation identical to what the employees thought, with a twist. They claimed that the report was written to help the employees rather than to undermine their positions. In writing the report, they stated that the weaknesses of each employee were outlined so that management would know how to direct training dollars. Logically their statement would make sense if the report were used for those training purposes. They also stated that they are not taking our jobs away from us, they are helping us by taking the load off of our shoulders. They have the inside track on all the executive decisions being made and they are closer inline with management to make better decisions than we would have made. From an economic standpoint, they could stand to save the company millions of dollars by doing coming up with a new plan, test and implement the plan and also support the underlying architecture. In doing so, the employees could concentrate on helping the Network Operations Center (NOC). The plan they came up with was given a fancy name, which was merely a version upgrade of an already existing architecture.

As management gave them more power to wield their plan, they started branching out and persuading other departments to buy into what they were doing. They creatively convinced management that they were correct in everything that they did and everyone else in every other department was wrong. Their next step was to try and quiet the complaints that the employees have by instructing management to have us document any and everything to keep us busy. This distraction would in an essence keep us from complaining. This step was unsuccessful from the beginning because there was a lot of disconnects when management was handing out these assignments. When asked various questions about the assignments, management could not answer most of the questions presented. Often times the answers to the questions was taken to the consultants by management for an