tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-518481768015386858.post4973614085792088700..comments2023-08-06T04:28:52.092-04:00Comments on Karen Morton: Making your caseKarenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03309823327597536648noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-518481768015386858.post-37309453387505230212008-09-03T11:04:00.000-04:002008-09-03T11:04:00.000-04:00I certainly agree with your thoughts. In some situ...I certainly agree with your thoughts. In some situations and companies there is another reason I’d like to share: By the time the screams of the end users have reached the level of management where money can be allocated to solve a performance problem safety is paramount. Management deems it safer to do nothing and not allow anyone to do anything than to attempt a fix. By bringing in an expert even if the fix does not work management can blame it on an outside entity. Certainly it is not management's fault if the ‘best’ is brought in. I think it goes back to a saying I once heard: “You never get fired by bringing in IBM”.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09236179121194021775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-518481768015386858.post-38070840013807607222008-08-22T08:02:00.000-04:002008-08-22T08:02:00.000-04:00Narenda, I couldn't agree more: the very same thou...Narenda, I couldn't agree more: the very same thoughts crossed my mind and I believe that in the majority of cases this is the real reason - not that the employee did not make her case properly. It is strange: management know their own folks, their strengths and weaknesses, but if you get someone sent from another company with the label "XYZ expert" attached that guy is seen as flawless - certainly much more competent that those "locals".<BR><BR>Another pattern I have seen frequently: own personnel is not allowed to investigate a certain issue that they announce to become a major showstopper. Then, it <I>does</I> become a showstopper and now, all in a hurry, management calls in an external expert, who - of course - gets all the resources to investigate. And of course he also gets all the credits, and sometimes this is used as confirmation that "our own people couldn't do it".roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01724179181550310220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-518481768015386858.post-14096990587049144082008-08-20T04:48:00.000-04:002008-08-20T04:48:00.000-04:00Karen,I agree with some of the points that you hav...Karen,<BR/><BR/>I agree with some of the points that you have mentioned. I guess, one of the main reasons behind management not listening to their staff, is the staff (DBA / Developer etc.) may not always be able to communicate the full picture to the management. If staff keeps talking technical language or something similar, which does not clearly communicate what management / business needs, staff might get ignored. BUT...<BR/>Unfortunately, I have seen plenty of times, that "Who" says it is much more important than "What" is said. Management alomst always tend to weigh the communication, based on the person's role / position in the company. A suggestion made by a staff member (who earns, say, £100 a day) is deemed "less valuable" than the exact same suggestion made by a consultant (who earns, say, £500 a day).<BR/>And then the (in)famous politics also plays an impotant role. Somebody in management, usually, had taken a decision to hire a consultant. And that "somebody" will get in trouble if people discover that company has ended up paying 4-times more money to the consultant, to solve a problem, which their staff could anyway have solved it.<BR/>That also reminds me of one more reason. Sometimes companies just want to hire consultants to tell them that "2+2=4", because they can justify the inflated project costs and bill customer accordingly.<BR/>I must say your post struck a cord and I could easily find myself related to it. (Now you know who I am...a cribbing staff member...hahaha)Narendrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14645699853364658640noreply@blogger.com