A Twitter Discussion on Higher Ed Consultants
Last week, I inadvertently provoked a great discussion on Twitter by asking the following question: Why are higher education consultants given more credibility than full time staff who say the exact same thing? What followed was a discussion among 40 of us, from all different points of view including practitioners at all levels, faculty members and consultants.
Preface: I think consultants play a very important role in higher education. Hell, I am one! But I also think there’s a lot of great in-house talent out there that are ignored all too often.
I thought that a MindMap would be the best way to organize the six pages worth of responses that I got. You can download the full PDF by clicking on the picture below:
Here are the main points we hit on:
Show me the money: Money was a central theme of the discussion, with many people arguing that money brought with it credibility and gives administrators license to trust outsiders. Administrators have been trained to throw money at a problem and hope that it will go away. One interesting point that came along with that was the idea that money buys you the ability to assign external blame for the failure of a project. I thought it was a genius observation.
Employees are biased and not trusted/empowered: Clearly, this conversation struck a nerve with many practitioners who felt personally slighted by this type of maneuver. Having been in their shoes, I don’t blame them! Many people touched on the fact that administrators considered their employees bias, and therefore untrustworthy. Others commented that internal staff were overburdened (mostly because of their managers) and with multiple roles, it was difficult for them to be viewed as experts in one area.
Consultants know better? It’s no surprise that this was the one the consultants in the discussion hit on. I would agree in the past, it was true that consultants had a broader view of what was going on in higher ed, but I think the internet has leveled the playing field. It not only allows practitioners greater access to what their competitors are doing, but also enhances our ability to communicate with each other.
Finally, are they given more credibility? Was the basic premise of the question wrong? A few people thought so, citing people at their institutions who refuse to let outsiders take control.
What else? Did we miss something? Leave a comment and add your point of view!
Special thanks to the following who participated:
- @JohnReillyIsGod
- @rachelreuben
- @carlenek
- @mventre
- @TimNekritz
- @jdwcornell
- @sbjet
- @karinejoly
- @dewpurdy
- @ilynes
- @ninjarunner
- @katidavis
- @fienen
- @George
- @ellenkanner
- @bentforkz
- @Gordon_Ryan
- @heavywinter
- @mikewolek
- @NikkiMK
- @kfred85
- @designologist
- @santoroski
- @silviastraka
- @HighEdMarketing
- @brendensparks
- @mStonerblog
- @docmjs
- @j_rex
- @dylanw
- @jjsteffe
- @jmilles
- @mortond
- @sawdesigns
- @flipgonzo
- @devinmason
- @debrasanborn
- @abosio
- @kprentiss
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like what you read here? Subscribe to this blog through RSS or sign up to receive email updates when new content is posted.
Hire Karlyn: Karlyn is the President & Principal Consultant of DoJo Web Strategy, a consultancy dedicated to helping colleges and universities to utilize the web in their marketing efforts. Find out how she can help your institution by requesting a proposal today »
April 27th, 2009
Great observations from the crowd. I’s also add that it’s a lot harder to let insiders go than it is a consultant. There are far more checks and balances involved removing an nonperforming employee.
April 27th, 2009
Great point Nikki…that’s why on the mindmap, I specifically called out the point about being able to externally assign blame. I had never thought of it before last weeks discussion, but it makes sense!
April 27th, 2009
Karlyn,
Great discussion, and totally in line with my own experiences. Consultants often seem to be used by bosses to “shake up” the mix and keep employees from becoming complacent rather than for their intrinsic expertise. They can also be useful for their contacts, particularly in the advancement field.
I liked the use of a mindmap to sort out the issues. What software did you use? I am currently looking for a good one as I like to use mindmaps to think through things.
Jane
April 27th, 2009
Thanks Jane. I used MindJet MindManger for the post. I think mindmaps can be extremely valuable in helping to sort through a lot of varied information.
April 27th, 2009
Karlyn,
I’m sad that I missed that conversation on Twitter. It just goes to show if you miss a few beats, you can miss a lot. I’m just glad you summarized it in a MindMap. We also have this as an ongoing dilemma. Consultants bring with them an aura of ‘credibility’. I think your discussion really brought up some good points. I do think that consultants do provide some usefulness, that being an outside perspective. Sometimes, staff member’s paradigms need to be challenged and shifted. A ‘fresh set of eyes’ is always a good thing to provide solutions to problems. Its when an institution relies solely on outside consultants to provide direction and recommendations that the process fails I believe.
April 27th, 2009
Yeah, sorry I missed that discussion. I’m of the campe that believes that consults aren’t usually given more credibility. My experience has been that we pay consultants to come in and tell us exactly the same thing we’ve all be saying for awhile (maybe with more data or flashier handouts), but in the end, they are ignored as much as the employees.
I think consultants give the institution the idea that they are moving forward, but it’s only the impression of moving forward that matters. In the end, we live like U2…running to stand still.
Or maybe I’m just in a pessimistic mood today…
April 27th, 2009
I also was an employee before I came back as a consultant. The thing is one has to have an ideal of teamwork. The consultant isn’t there to necessarily “rock the boat”, only to point out a different point of view. At the end of the day, both the consultant and the institution have the same goal(s) and its important not to lose focus on that.
April 27th, 2009
HAHA, good stuff. When I worked at Wofford I brought in a consultant company to do a site audit that cost the school $15K not to necessarily give ideas new ideas as much as to see if what I thought we needed really was the case. In talking with them there were some definitely highlights and takeaways that came out of it (they were true experts) and as I had hoped quite a bit of reinforcement that we needed to go down a certain path but just weren’t getting any traction without the outside authority coming to town. I really have no clue if they moved ahead with the suggestions that came out of the sessions as I shortly thereafter left the job to become of all things… A CONSULTANT.
April 28th, 2009
[...] are high education consultants given more credibility than full time staff who say the same exact thing?” This was the question Karlyn Morissette asked her Twitter network. [...]
April 28th, 2009
I would like to point out that this is by no means limited to higher ed. My wife might think the bedtime routine I created for our son is no good until her girlfriend or hairstylist back me up. Its a curious phenomenon (the consultant thing, not the fact that my wife’s hairstylist is basically raising my kids) and I think it may have to do with pooling mistakes.
As a co-worker the people you work with day in and day out get to see every mistake, or what they perceive as a mistake, all the time. If you’re late to a meeting or don’t have a deliverable that get’s checked off in people’s minds (even subconsciously).
A consultant (much like a new hire who comes from a well known competitor) comes in without that baggage, and comes in with the perceived vetting of the ‘higher-ups’. I believe there is much more psychology than substance at play here.
Thanks for starting this conversation, sorry I missed those tweets!
April 29th, 2009
At least in my experience, the management hiring the consultants often lacks the expertise in the area in question to be able to determine whether the consultants offer something that employees cannot. Consultants can be life-savers, but of course not all of them are talented or knowledgeable, and if the consultant-hiring management would put the expertise of their own employees to use in determining whether or not hiring a consultant is warranted, less money would be wasted, and less ill will would result from employees feeling they are not valued.
April 29th, 2009
I finally got a chance to write some of my thoughts about this topic (more in my post, When The Right Consultant Can Help. To me, it’s a matter of being clear about what you want to get out of a consultancy and hiring someone who can help you achieve those objectives. Thanks for pulling the mind map together: it’s great!
April 29th, 2009
[...] are from mars, vendors from venus. Jump to Comments Karlyn Morissette blogged earlier this week about why (and whether) consultants outside higher education seem to get more respect than [...]
April 29th, 2009
I think the discussion on this topic is great. As a relatively new employee in the education world, I can easily see how this occurs frequently. I also think that isaacson is spot on in regards to this not being an occurrence unique to educational institutions.
In my opinion, the phenomenon can be easily attributed to the idea of freshness. Managers constantly see how their employees perform and over time learn their strengths and weaknesses. If one were to generalize an employee’s strengths and weaknesses and compare them against a new problem domain—here I am assuming the problem domain is not something that frequently occurs—it is easy to draw the conclusion that the employee is not an expert on the new domain. Giving them training, time, or a combination of both is sometimes the right thing to do, but the easier route is to hire a consultant that has a proved history of successfully solving the new problem.
I don’t think hiring a consultant over internal employees is necessarily a mistake. I think the mistake comes when employees do not learn from the consultant’s efforts which, in turn, causes a need for consultants again in the future.
We—developers at Texas A&M—just started discussions centering around developing a “Community Developer Network”, as one respondent put it, which could serve as an internal consultant pool. At larger institutions I think this is the way to go. The knowledge is still internal to the University, but external to the specific department in need of addressing a new problem domain. If you’d like to follow along, or add your thoughts, the relevant blog post is http://webmaster.tamu.edu/?p=1221.
April 29th, 2009
[...] other day, I touched the tension between higher ed consultants and internal employees in higher ed. Though I made this note on that post, I want to reinforce it with this post, because I [...]
April 30th, 2009
Jeff, I agree: it’s really important to have staff members learn from your consultants. It’s a real benefit of hiring a consultant. One of the criteria a college or university should use is how much of a role staff will have in the project and how a knowledge transfer will occur. And then find out if it actually does.
May 8th, 2009
[...] back within minutes. Recently, I asked my followers about higher education consultants, and it turned into a conversation with 40 participants. When you’re in a bind, it can really come in [...]
August 22nd, 2009
Watch One Piece Episode 206 Online!
July 30th, 2010
This page is a great method to get through to others. Congratulations on a job well achieved. I am anticipating your next entry.
July 30th, 2010
hello friends
Amongst many beautiful places Greece cities are one of them
Ioannina: One of the leading Greece Vacations, Ioannina is a amazing place to holiday and a awfully well place to splurge Greece holidays, that’s the reason why many travelers like to visit this place
so I would certainly like to spend some days over here Ioanina
See you in the New year!.