The Anti-Consultancy Consultancy

I’ve had this idea for 15 years or so, but forgot about it until I sat down and talked with a friend who worked for a dysfunctional company that recently let him go. My experience working in corporate America is that the best and most effective firms listen to their employees, and set up some means of obtaining their opinions on how the business could be improved. Bad firms have managements that think that know it all, and the rank and file must merely execute what they imagine will work.

In all of the time that I worked in the insurance industry, or served on the boards nonprofit organizations, I have yet to have seen a situation where a consultant needed to be hired to solve a problem. The middle management of the firms in question knew what the answer was, but senior management was either fighting with itself, or weak-minded.

I remember one situation where the Chief Investment Officer and the Chief Financial Officer hated each others guts, and could rarely agree. The only way to solve a particular problem was to hire a consultant, who would neutrally give them an answer that they both would heed.

I was running a small line of business in the company, and the consultant approached me for data, which I gave him, but I asked my boss about the situation. He told me that the company was spending roughly 7% of that year’s income to analyze the investment policy of the firm, particularly with respect to the liabilities of the firm. I said to my boss, “If you gave me 3 months, I could solve this project on my own, and the cost would be 3% of what the consultant charges.” He laughed and told me about the fighting above us, that led to the costs.

As it was, the consultant gave advice that was less detailed than I would have given, but was valuable, though embarrassing to the insurance company — they were invested two years shorter than they should be. There a free lunch to pick up income and reduce risk. You could go three years longer if you wanted to optimize risk.

Lovely, but if management had just asked its line of business actuaries to answer the questions it all could been solved for a small fraction of the cost, and with more precision. Also, though no one talked about it at the time, it really showed that senior management really did not understand the core business, which was earning a spread over liabilities adjusted for risk.

I have another experience working with a non-profit where the executive was weak, and would never hire anyone more talented than himself. As a board member, I was always shocked with how badly the place was run, but the board members suffered from the same disease; few were competent. Management liked having incompetent board members. Worse, the incompetent board members did not like anyone suggesting that there was a better way to do things, which is why I eventually left.