GRE Prep Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Analyze an Issue - Companies hire outside consultants to..
[#permalink]
28 Jun 2019, 03:45
28 Jun 2019, 03:45
1
Bookmarks
Issue:
My essay:
Please suggest ways to improve and/or a score. Thanks
Quote:
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.
My essay:
Quote:
Expert, well-trained consultants can bring a fresh and distinct perspective about company processes that long-term employees cannot ordinarily bring. As outsiders separate from ordinary company proceedings, hired consultants are in a stronger position to critically evaluate the efficiency of a company's processes because they have fewer preconceived notions about how things should be done. In contrast, employees might suffer from tunnel vision: after being focused on a certain way of doing things for a long, it is difficult to look at a process with a fresh eye and try to spot where it might not be optimal.
Sometimes coming from different countries or cultural backgrounds, consultants can offer an even more fresh perspective by considering the efficiency of corporate structure or the hierarchy of employees, which varies strongly by culture. As an example: after the Iraq War and the subsequent restructuring of the Iraqi military, American experts brought into help Iraq often pointed out that soldiers of different ranks were a lot more subservient to their commanders than in the U.S. military, and this subservience would often result in indecisiveness at critical moments during operations. By offering a foreign perspective, they could find an inefficiency that local members of the Iraqi military may have overlooked. Criticising or changing such long-held structures in a company may irritate or annoy employees and therefore must be done with care or the company may risk damage to its relation with its employees.
Furthermore, consultants can also offer a more holistic picture of company operations than what can be gained by asking employees, again this can be seen as an instance of tunnel vision: employees, being focused on their individual positions, may not be able to see the whole picture at the company. While senior employees in management or leadership positions may be able to also offer a holistic picture of company operations, consultants can also bring a fresh and outsider perspective to the table.
On the other hand, consultants cost a lot more to bring to the company compared to listening to its employees, and sufficiently familiarizing consultants with company processes and operations may take too much or be too costly to the company: companies must try to balance their needs and capabilitgies well in this case. In conclusion, I disagree that companies should spend more time listening to their employees in lieu of hiring consultants because consultants might offer ideas or suggestions for improvement that employees may overlook due to tunnel vision or other reasons.
Sometimes coming from different countries or cultural backgrounds, consultants can offer an even more fresh perspective by considering the efficiency of corporate structure or the hierarchy of employees, which varies strongly by culture. As an example: after the Iraq War and the subsequent restructuring of the Iraqi military, American experts brought into help Iraq often pointed out that soldiers of different ranks were a lot more subservient to their commanders than in the U.S. military, and this subservience would often result in indecisiveness at critical moments during operations. By offering a foreign perspective, they could find an inefficiency that local members of the Iraqi military may have overlooked. Criticising or changing such long-held structures in a company may irritate or annoy employees and therefore must be done with care or the company may risk damage to its relation with its employees.
Furthermore, consultants can also offer a more holistic picture of company operations than what can be gained by asking employees, again this can be seen as an instance of tunnel vision: employees, being focused on their individual positions, may not be able to see the whole picture at the company. While senior employees in management or leadership positions may be able to also offer a holistic picture of company operations, consultants can also bring a fresh and outsider perspective to the table.
On the other hand, consultants cost a lot more to bring to the company compared to listening to its employees, and sufficiently familiarizing consultants with company processes and operations may take too much or be too costly to the company: companies must try to balance their needs and capabilitgies well in this case. In conclusion, I disagree that companies should spend more time listening to their employees in lieu of hiring consultants because consultants might offer ideas or suggestions for improvement that employees may overlook due to tunnel vision or other reasons.
Please suggest ways to improve and/or a score. Thanks
Re: Analyze an Issue - Companies hire outside consultants to..
[#permalink]
02 Jul 2019, 12:11
02 Jul 2019, 12:11
1
Bump. Anyone?
Posted from my mobile device
Posted from my mobile device
Analyze an Issue - Companies hire outside consultants to..
[#permalink]
07 Feb 2021, 00:36
07 Feb 2021, 00:36
1
I'm not a grader, but I happen to have practiced the same Issue, and I'm looking for suggestions or a score, too (I practiced within the time limit, and typos are reserved for grading considerations):
Quote:
There has been a long-lasting debate on whether companies should hire outside consultants for opinions on company operation. Some think employees is a better source of opinions and is already enough, while others believe consultants have their value. In my opinion, while company employees do have their valuable opinions on company operation, those are not enough to substitute experts' stances from outside the company.
First of all, consultants have more expertise in company operation. To become an expertised consultant, they have to spend time learning theories about the market and the comapny operation. They also investigate the situation in the current market into depth. All these information are different from what company employees have. Employees usually have various expertise areas and have to spend time on their daily work rather than the broader but less relevant information outside there in the market. Even people in a company's marketing department usually have different focuses than a general non-employee consultant.
At the mean time, consultants have different interest stances than company employees and thus can provide viewpoints from different perspectives. It is human nature to be selfish, so for company employees, they often hope company policies can benefit themselves, especially when nowadays changing employers is quite normal, people don't necessarily provide suggestions merely based on the company's benefits. Of course, there is a lot of overlaps between a comapny's and its employees' benefits, but taking suggestions only from employees really could be partial. Outside consultants are not 100% reliable, either, but combining opinions from both sides is a viable way to reduce biases of their oppinions, and is what a wise leader would consider.
So, it's already obvious in the last paragraph, but I'd like to emphasize it again, that by suggesting taking opinions from consultants, I'm not denying the necessity of learning employees' viewpoints. The latter is not a complete picture of what company leaders might want to know about their operations, but also worth consideration.
In general, I believe taking opinions from outside consultants is not a waste of money and time, although it's definitely a better way to take opinions from both consultants and employees, with opinions from each of both sides compensating those from the other.
First of all, consultants have more expertise in company operation. To become an expertised consultant, they have to spend time learning theories about the market and the comapny operation. They also investigate the situation in the current market into depth. All these information are different from what company employees have. Employees usually have various expertise areas and have to spend time on their daily work rather than the broader but less relevant information outside there in the market. Even people in a company's marketing department usually have different focuses than a general non-employee consultant.
At the mean time, consultants have different interest stances than company employees and thus can provide viewpoints from different perspectives. It is human nature to be selfish, so for company employees, they often hope company policies can benefit themselves, especially when nowadays changing employers is quite normal, people don't necessarily provide suggestions merely based on the company's benefits. Of course, there is a lot of overlaps between a comapny's and its employees' benefits, but taking suggestions only from employees really could be partial. Outside consultants are not 100% reliable, either, but combining opinions from both sides is a viable way to reduce biases of their oppinions, and is what a wise leader would consider.
So, it's already obvious in the last paragraph, but I'd like to emphasize it again, that by suggesting taking opinions from consultants, I'm not denying the necessity of learning employees' viewpoints. The latter is not a complete picture of what company leaders might want to know about their operations, but also worth consideration.
In general, I believe taking opinions from outside consultants is not a waste of money and time, although it's definitely a better way to take opinions from both consultants and employees, with opinions from each of both sides compensating those from the other.
