All too often, companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary.

The given statement advocates the utility of intra-company employee surveys for gauging the scope of efficiency enhancement over an audit by third-party consultants which analyze the nuts and bolts of company working to propose possible solutions which could enhance efficiency. However, the given statement, at face value, does not provide evidence for such an onus and is highly dogmatic. The usage of external consultants must be continued and even expanded if the company is to achieve higher revenues and profits.

An evaluation by outside consultants is purely third-party in nature. Neither does it protect underperforming individuals, nor does it unnecessarily criticize outstanding employees for the sake of doing so. External consultants have nothing to lose by highlighting major disasters in working as they would not be reproached, rather rewarded by the company, for presenting an unbiased evaluation. Contrary to this, if employees were asked to present their opinions in enhancing efficiency, they would be most likely to shield criticism of their dear colleagues. If they themselves were at the lowest strata of performance, they would definitely not stand up and resign from their jobs. Such a conflict of interest is rarely possible with outside consultants.

To elaborate on this, one could consider the example of a PhD student's dissertation. At the time of the final oral defence of a PhD-to-be student, there is always an examiner who is totally oblivious to the student's research field. The examiner is unaware of why, what and how did the student conduct research. However, the examiner is well trained at identifying loopholes and unbased work. He would exactly know if the student has worked diligently during the course of his graduation or simply mooched off the institute funding. Thus, even though the student's guide hates or loves his student, the external examiner doesn't buy the guide' viewpoint and rather presents his own, unbiased evaluation. The same can be attributed to the problem mentioned in the statement. The external examiner is e external consultants while the research guide is akin to company employees.

However, one must not overlook the problems which arise solely due to employee mistreatment and order the consultants to steam roll the decision making process. Not only would this move cost more consulting money but also make employees indignated. For example, if employees are disgruntled because they are made to work even when sick and the company's performance is declining, one must take their opinions into confidence. If explained that the company is in bad health and productivity should be maximum, they may even work harder than ever to save their jobs. An external consultant may just recommend firing these employees, a unnecessary, drastic step.

Thus, external consultants are beyond doubt invaluable in identifying loopholes in company operation and presenting solutions to increase efficiency. However, the choice of where they are utilized should be taken wisely. Only then would their efforts yield maximum fruit.