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. Write a response in which you disc

Companies sometimes must go through a series of changes in order to improve growth of the company, to ultimately garner more profits. For sound change, companies often hire outside consultants who could suggest ways that would allow for smoother and more efficient operation within a company. However, critics oppose the employment of such consultants, instead contending that a company should make time to listen more to its employees. While company employees certainly do offer valuable insight into the inner operations of a company, outside consultants can offer a greater benefit to its betterment.

There is a certain merit to relying on consultants. Outside consultants are hired, as per their description, from outside the company, meaning that they may have experiences from other employment opportunities that might be beneficial to the company. These experiences, if positive, would be proven accounts of company improvement, and therefore employers could choose to implement these ideas. Similarly, outside consultants may be able to suggest more creative recommendations that do not necessarily come from experience, but from a creative mind, especially since creativity is highly valued in a workplace. Offering suggestions, however, is not all that outside consultants have to offer. Consultants are trained professionals: there is a certain analytical process to their vocation. For example, consultants could conduct interviews with company employees, and gain some insight into establishment procedures that are, more or less, privy to these employees. Similarly, they could interview customers, suppliers, and even the business administration itself. Through these interviews, consultants could gather all the information collected and use it to draft different recommendations for change. A great advantage to these consultants is that because they were initially not part of the company, they have no particular affiliation to it, and therefore observe company proceedings or interview various peoples through an objective lens. This way, if a particular difficult change must be done, they would not be so begrudging proposing such an idea, and usually, company bosses would be willing to agree. These ideas could include recommending downsizing the company, or even merging with another company—two very sudden changes.

That does not mean to say that company employees are not a potentially great source for consultancy. As aforementioned, they are quite aware of many of the company proceedings that their employers might not be conscious to. Employees who have the opportunity to be heard by their employers might direct changes that would improve working conditions for themselves. Moreover, if their employers were to hire outside consultants who, as well, are not knowledgeable of employee relations and other employee matters, they might as well set impossible standards or recommend seemingly impossible changes. For example, to improve work efficiency, consultants could suggest decreasing the time for breaks or even limit the number of vacation days per employee. However, these employees, more conscious of their needs, could suggest that, instead, to increase efficiency, that the company allocates different lunch breaks to a set number of people. This way, there would not be such a great emphasis on work, and employees could have some time to relax and refresh. Another example could suggest that employees who are working with materials might see the benefit in changing to low-cost materials that are equally functional. Within time, experienced employees could be promoted to consultants themselves, offering recommendation to improving the organization.

There are, however, downsides to both parties. Outside consultants are costly: a company that wants to do well would hire several consultants, each demanding expensive paychecks for recommendations drawn from minds enriched with experience and creativity. Additionally, consultants often clash with the employees because of the former’s oblivion to the different relations and experiences these employees have. Sometimes, consultants do not even take the time to listen to the employees, and would make suggestions that would harm internal affairs, and missed information could lead to wrong decision-making. However, companies cannot only rely on their employees because there is a certain emotional attachment the latter has that could hinder necessary changes for improvement and growth. Moreover, they lack a certain experience that consultants possess, and may not necessarily be able to think outside the box.

Despite the disadvantages that pertain to them, outside consultants are valuable assets to companies that desire to grow and profit. These consultants acquire a myriad of different ideas collected from a wide experience in the field. As well, because they are trained to consult, they maintain a creative outlook for recommendations and solutions. This is particularly important because they were not part of the company, and therefore, are able to make suggestions that do not come from emotion but through a certain practicality that is intended to profit the company. Meanwhile, they are expensive to hire, and they may not take time to interview employees about the inner workings of the company, perhaps leading to rash decision-making. However, a company should not have to rely solely on its employees. Although they are more knowledgeable about certain internal organizational affairs, they may often make more subjective recommendations that are not necessarily beneficial.