I’ve noticed a growing reliance on consultants from various vendors within our organization. What stands out is that some individuals, who have previously worked with these consultancies or have longstanding relationships with them, seem to be providing an unusual level of support to their former colleagues. This raises questions about the broader dynamics at play. Could there be indirect influences shaping decisions and outcomes? I’d be interested in hearing others' perspectives on this.
5 replies (most recent on top)
Senior leaders should be driving strategy, not outsourcing to consultants. What is their job???
Coming from big tech, I’ve never witnessed anything like this. An 80:20 consultant-to-employee ratio, with subpar quality on both fronts- it’s unbelievable how a bank of this scale operates under these conditions. As a leader, it’s deeply concerning and disappointing.
I have no idea what any of you are talking about.
Interesting point. It does seem like some bankers leverage consultants to secure future roles or personal benefits, rather than focusing on organizational value. The close ties in areas like Corporate Compliance raise red flags—there’s definitely a need for more transparency and accountability to prevent favoritism or quid-pro-quo practices.
Based on personal experience, many of the bankers who default to the usage of consultants are playing both sides of the fence, meaning they like consultants who can think and do their jobs for them, but they also like being able to network and get face time with those same consultants so they can be considered for future roles at those same consultancies. There are several in Corporate Compliance who have close relationships with such consultants and the only benefit seems to be for the person at the bank who is engaged with the consultant.