Contracting feels more like someone is handing you tasks, whereas at least by my definition a consultant comes in and outlines changes, really driving a direction for the company.

I’d ask you the question though with layoffs, and most companies cutting back on perks even if they did employ everyone directly “do you honestly still think there is a sense of a reward and belonging/security?”

I’d argue people are tending towards being more jaded where maybe consulting offers a sense of ownership, purpose and reward their employment may not.

Perhaps in a perfect world, we would return to the model of an organization employing all of their workforce, regardless of location. Yes that would eliminate the consulting services vendors (we call them pimps in the IT department) but it would give a greater reward to the actual people who are doing the job. I’ve also been pretty soured to the whole contracting side because too many friends have lost their jobs in this way.

Funny how the consulting vendors continue to get paid even when the individual consultant has been terminated…

What I meant to say:

With the pressures of competition many companies feel that there is no choice but to outsource to remain cost competitive.

There are advantages to outsourcing as well as drawbacks. It’s important that business owners go in without preconceptions and determine what level of outsourcing is needed for their products if any.

As for your take on the need for a fundamental orginizational cultural change I couldnt be more in agrement. When will the majority of businesses learn to balance their stockholders’ wealth with their stakeholders’ needs. Seeing companies beating earnings and still laying off 5,000 people (IBM) always drives me up the wall. Great reward for all those people who performed for you.

There are many reasons for outsourcing, and it would be impossible to make a generic statement on something that is situational. Even with these limitations, a vast majority of the organizations outsource because of the financial benefit. They do not have to pay the contract worker the same wages or benefits as the full-time employee. If they need to improve the stock price, they simply lay off a few contractors under the disguise of “your project is cancelled”. I would also reveal that I’m not a big fan of labor unions, I’m not a Democrat, and I do not support a socialist agenda. Still I ask, can we find a way to make a profit in business while still remembering there is a person involved?

Two interesting perspectives come from Greenleaf’s perspective on servant leadership and Sternberg’s concepts of wisdom and stewardship. Both of these theorists propose that companies will become more profitable when they start being better stewards of their resources, have a focus on social action, and treat their employees with respect.

How does this relate to outsourcing? If we adopt an attitude of stewardship, we would stop wasting resources. We would not develop a search (or decison) engine that is not needed. Companies would focus their resources on the items that are profitable and have a benefit to society. Relationships with vendors would change, and relationships within organizations would change. It would not matter if the person was outsourced, or insourced… they would truly be a partner. I have over 25 years experience, both as a contractor and as a full-time, and I can tell you that organizations treat their outsourced resources much differently. They are considered expendible, and at the first sign of financial difficulty, they are simply shown the door.

Planning and solid management are key to success with any project, but that is not the only thing that is needed. We need a fundamental organizational cultural change that balances the needs of the market with the benefits to society. This may seem like a European idea (or socialist) to some, but it is a proven business strategy. I could use examples such as Starbucks and ServiceMaster to support these claims.

Interesting post Nick. Thank You