Consultants

[Kelly the Dog]

Terry Pegula's Buffalo Sabres are in a two way tie for the WORST record in the NHL. When Pegula bought the Buffalo Sabres did he bring in consultants?

 

Again, it sounds like Pegula is only focusing on the business operations (profits/losses) of the Buffalo Bills. Not the football team itself.

I would estimate 90% of people who follow the Sabres very closely are thrilled with the direction the team is going. I don't know one that doesn't, although I am sure they are out there.

 

As far as consultants go, it's not black and white, yes or no, good or bad. There are good ones and bad ones. A lot of people think all unions suck. Well, some unions are awesome. A lot of people think all agents suck. Well, some agents are awesome.

 

Furthermore, I don't know this for a fact, but I think I probably know more about the NFL and the Bills than Terry Pegula does. But I don't know how to own a team better than he does. And if I was the owner, I think I would hire a top consultant to dig deep and give me an extensive report and then make some decisions, taking it into consideration but not as gospel.

[OCinBuffalo]

I will start with an admission.... I am always a little sceptical of consultants. However, my professional experience leads me to say that used in the correct way with a clear and normally narrow focus they can have a place.

You should be every bit as skeptical of us, as we are of you. Partially because many claim to be us, that aren't. Partially because you're usually lying about a lot of things, and often don't even realize it. IF we are telling the truth here, so be it:

 

We don't live to serve you, no matter what the partners/marketing people say. Rather, the good consultants live to solve problems, first, help people, second, and think of it that way. The greedy and the nerdy eventually get tossed out and wind up in lesser jobs. We see them as they are. If they were us, they'd know that. They were never us. Few are.

 

If you have problems I'm interested in solving, great. Get out of the way and let me solve them. Hint: I wouldn't be here if you could do it yourself(unless your firm's officers are using us to cover their asses. Worst case: We take the $ we can get, and the blame....did I mention take the $?). Get in my way on purpose, and you better have your resume updated = my personal experience. In that experience, there's a 90% chance you aren't very good at doing much of anything...other than half-assing your piece of the current business process. If it came down to you suddenly coming up with an original, ass-saving, thought?

 

5% chance.

 

That's why we're here. One of 100s of real world examples: I once asked 12 accounting department heads for the current documentation of their business processes. 1 guy out of 12 was prepared for the meeting a week later. They rest sat there like lost children, some were faking that, some weren't. These were adults, with 100+ direct reports, none of whom have the foggiest idea WTF was going on in their unit, other than some pathetic spreadsheets...and you're talking to me about ways to limit my effort? What happens when I'm 1 of only 2 people in the room, who can demonstrate any effort?

 

We exist for a reason, and 9/10 that's because of a general lack of competence/waiting for retirement/save and kiss asses/risk aversion by people who want the title/$/authority but don't want the responsibility, promoted for non-merit reasons, etc. in an organization. We exist, because you exist, poorly. And, if and when we want to get out and work on the client side? We get the job, and you don't.

 

Every good(otherwise known as not fired), real, consultant Partner or PM controls the scope of his/her engagement completely and with skill. If you think you are narrowing/expanding the scope? That's probably because that illusion serves the Partner/PM's current needs.

My experience of using consultants is that they are best employed to assist in addressing very specific weaknesses or perceived weakness in your organisational approach.

Really?

 

What happens when the CEO pulls his consultant out of the meeting, and explains that the reason his VPs all just sounded like morons, is because they are morons, he inherited them, and he'd like a recommendation on who to fire and who to keep by COB next Friday? What is the consultant supposed to say exactly? Since we are talking professional experince here...that, or something similar, has happened to me many times, sometimes by my design, sometimes not.

 

I suppose I was specific...fire this dude, keep this lady. But....WTF are you talking about? I mean: organizational approach? When a real project manager shows up? We are the organizational approach, or we soon will be, and you'd be wise not to test that. That's what the words Enterprise Consultant mean.

However, I cannot see what use a consultant is likely to be looking portmanteau at the Bills' football operations. That brief is so vast that there is unlikely to be any accountability at all to their recommendations. They are a different, independent set of eyes and ears to look at what you are doing but the breadth of what they are looking at means it is hard to pin point the benefit. If they make recommendations about your coaching set up, your athletic trainers, your scouting, and your cap management and you still lose do you just say "oh well the consultant was wrong" and move on? There are too many variables, too many inter dependencies that can't possibly be fully foreseen for those recommendations to significantly increase your chances of practical delivery (ie success on the field).

 

As I see it the consultant(s) just add another layer of largely unaccountable decision making into the process of turning this franchise around. The Pegulas would be much better served identifying the right person to come in as head of football operations and then empowering that person to make the right decisions about his GM and Head Coach and then empowering those people to make the right decisions about what happens beneath them. That is how the organisations that have truly turned things around have done it.

It's as I said above: we see things as they are. Thus, also as I said above: CEOs routinely use consultants to cover their own asses. That's what is occurring here. Most CEOs would call this: competence.

 

If you were me, then you'd know that an incoming CEO only gets 1 chance with a new organization....and s/he can F things up permanently, with people that aren't replaceable, before they even know that, fairly easily. So, rather than walking that tightrope, my phone rings. We will "assist in the transitition" etc., etc. BS. Basically, we wll ensure that the new CEO takes no blame for the usual early missteps and F ups/things that might piss off irreplaceable assets. This is especially true when the CEO brings along a dumbass or 5, because they know them, and said dumbass(es) is a lock to piss people off. Even if the new CEO orders us to do something directly, we make sure that it never appears to come from them.

 

This way, over time, the CEO can build solid relationships with his people, quietly get rid of dumbasses, and all the bad sticks to us. When we leave, we take that bad with us, along with our fees . It's a simple arrangement, but it takes real consultants, with real skills, to pull it off. If there's anything to be skeptical about: its whether the consultants engaged are real, and have those skills. As I said: many claim to be us, but few are.

 

It's relatively easy if you know WTF you're doing. I've done something along these lines many times. Think: how hard is it to take blame, rather than avoid it? Nobody wants it, so they are happy to give it to you. You basically just have to write emails correctly, and make sure the CEO's assitants don't do anything stupid. If things get out of hand, the CEO can fire us, or more likely, we realize the CEO is a cowboy/girl and we walk. Either way, we make 1 chance into something else, and at the very least 2 chances.

 

That about covers it. Sorry, but that's the way this world works, and I get paid to tell the truth to people that don't want to hear it.

The skepticism in your post is 100% valid. There's really no such thing as consultants in the NFL. Consultants in the business world are for the most part completely useless as well.

Hilarious. My mere existence disproves this.

 

I love when this happens. When I am taking a dump today and flush it, remember that said dump, down in whatever sewer, also proves you wrong.

Edited November 23, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[dubs]

 

 

I'm not suspicious about the Pegulas' intentions - but of the benefits of the approach.

 

Well, what does it matter. If it doesn't provide much insight, then it's just some wasted money that's not yours. It's not going to hold up any decisions about the team.

[Kelly the Dog]

Well, what does it matter. If it doesn't provide much insight, then it's just some wasted money that's not yours. It's not going to hold up any decisions about the team.

I'm in favor of the consultant idea but it could easily hold up decisions on the team for a year or so.

[PromoTheRobot]

In my PROFESSIONAL experience, business consultants really don't provide much value. In my PROFESSIONAL experience, business consultants come in help incompetent business owners/management be somewhat less competent - temporarily.

 

Anyhow, the more I think about it, bringing in consultants really pertains to the business operations of the Buffalo Bills. Not the football team per se.

 

It sounds like Pegula might only be interested in the Buffalo Bills as a business enterprise. Buffalo Bills fans are so committed to this team that they fork over their money to the Bills even if the Buffalo Bills record stinks!

 

Sounds like Pegula's "consultant" idea is just focusing on money!

 

P.S. How is Pegula's Buffalo Sabres doing?

Really? That's your take? The guy obviously overspent for the Bills by half a billion because he's looking for a good business investment.

[Formerly Allan in MD]

The skepticism in your post is 100% valid. There's really no such thing as consultants in the NFL. Consultants in the business world are for the most part completely useless as well.

You clearly don't understand that their are 'consultants' of all stripes. Some are even experts. I believe that's what Mr. Pegula is talking about.

[Beerball]

In my PROFESSIONAL experience, business consultants really don't provide much value. In my PROFESSIONAL experience, business consultants come in help incompetent business owners/management be somewhat less competent - temporarily.

 

Anyhow, the more I think about it, bringing in consultants really pertains to the business operations of the Buffalo Bills. Not the football team per se.

 

It sounds like Pegula might only be interested in the Buffalo Bills as a business enterprise. Buffalo Bills fans are so committed to this team that they fork over their money to the Bills even if the Buffalo Bills record stinks!

 

Sounds like Pegula's "consultant" idea is just focusing on money!

 

P.S. How is Pegula's Buffalo Sabres doing?

Nice to see that you've come around. Life in your world seems awfully dark.

[Greybeard]

You should be every bit as skeptical of us, as we are of you. Partially because many claim to be us, that aren't. Partially because you're usually lying about a lot of things, and often don't even realize it. IF we are telling the truth here, so be it:

 

We don't live to serve you, no matter what the partners/marketing people say. Rather, the good consultants live to solve problems, first, help people, second, and think of it that way. The greedy and the nerdy eventually get tossed out and wind up in lesser jobs. We see them as they are. If they were us, they'd know that. They were never us. Few are.

 

If you have problems I'm interested in solving, great. Get out of the way and let me solve them. Hint: I wouldn't be here if you could do it yourself(unless your firm's officers are using us to cover their asses. Worst case: We take the $ we can get, and the blame....did I mention take the $?). Get in my way on purpose, and you better have your resume updated = my personal experience. In that experience, there's a 90% chance you aren't very good at doing much of anything...other than half-assing your piece of the current business process. If it came down to you suddenly coming up with an original, ass-saving, thought?

 

5% chance.

 

That's why we're here. One of 100s of real world examples: I once asked 12 accounting department heads for the current documentation of their business processes. 1 guy out of 12 was prepared for the meeting a week later. They rest sat there like lost children, some were faking that, some weren't. These were adults, with 100+ direct reports, none of whom have the foggiest idea WTF was going on in their unit, other than some pathetic spreadsheets...and you're talking to me about ways to limit my effort? What happens when I'm 1 of only 2 people in the room, who can demonstrate any effort?

 

We exist for a reason, and 9/10 that's because of a general lack of competence/waiting for retirement/save and kiss asses/risk aversion by people who want the title/$/authority but don't want the responsibility, promoted for non-merit reasons, etc. in an organization. We exist, because you exist, poorly. And, if and when we want to get out and work on the client side? We get the job, and you don't.

 

Every good(otherwise known as not fired), real, consultant Partner or PM controls the scope of his/her engagement completely and with skill. If you think you are narrowing/expanding the scope? That's probably because that illusion serves the Partner/PM's current needs.

 

Really?

 

What happens when the CEO pulls his consultant out of the meeting, and explains that the reason his VPs all just sounded like morons, is because they are morons, he inherited them, and he'd like a recommendation on who to fire and who to keep by COB next Friday? What is the consultant supposed to say exactly? Since we are talking professional experince here...that, or something similar, has happened to me many times, sometimes by my design, sometimes not.

 

I suppose I was specific...fire this dude, keep this lady. But....WTF are you talking about? I mean: organizational approach? When a real project manager shows up? We are the organizational approach, or we soon will be, and you'd be wise not to test that. That's what the words Enterprise Consultant mean.

 

It's as I said above: we see things as they are. Thus, also as I said above: CEOs routinely use consultants to cover their own asses. That's what is occurring here. Most CEOs would call this: competence.

 

If you were me, then you'd know that an incoming CEO only gets 1 chance with a new organization....and s/he can F things up permanently, with people that aren't replaceable, before they even know that, fairly easily. So, rather than walking that tightrope, my phone rings. We will "assist in the transitition" etc., etc. BS. Basically, we wll ensure that the new CEO takes no blame for the usual early missteps and F ups/things that might piss off irreplaceable assets. This is especially true when the CEO brings along a dumbass or 5, because they know them, and said dumbass(es) is a lock to piss people off. Even if the new CEO orders us to do something directly, we make sure that it never appears to come from them.

 

This way, over time, the CEO can build solid relationships with his people, quietly get rid of dumbasses, and all the bad sticks to us. When we leave, we take that bad with us, along with our fees . It's a simple arrangement, but it takes real consultants, with real skills, to pull it off. If there's anything to be skeptical about: its whether the consultants engaged are real, and have those skills. As I said: many claim to be us, but few are.

 

It's relatively easy if you know WTF you're doing. I've done something along these lines many times. Think: how hard is it to take blame, rather than avoid it? Nobody wants it, so they are happy to give it to you. You basically just have to write emails correctly, and make sure the CEO's assitants don't do anything stupid. If things get out of hand, the CEO can fire us, or more likely, we realize the CEO is a cowboy/girl and we walk. Either way, we make 1 chance into something else, and at the very least 2 chances.

 

That about covers it. Sorry, but that's the way this world works, and I get paid to tell the truth to people that don't want to hear it.

 

Hilarious. My mere existence disproves this.

 

I love when this happens. When I am taking a dump today and flush it, remember that said dump, down in whatever sewer, also proves you wrong.

 

 

And what does the consultant do when he realizes the CEO is the chief moron?

[GunnerBill]

If you were me, then you'd know that an incoming CEO only gets 1 chance with a new organization....and s/he can F things up permanently, with people that aren't replaceable, before they even know that, fairly easily. So, rather than walking that tightrope, my phone rings. We will "assist in the transitition" etc., etc. BS. Basically, we wll ensure that the new CEO takes no blame for the usual early missteps and F ups/things that might piss off irreplaceable assets. This is especially true when the CEO brings along a dumbass or 5, because they know them, and said dumbass(es) is a lock to piss people off. Even if the new CEO orders us to do something directly, we make sure that it never appears to come from them.

 

This way, over time, the CEO can build solid relationships with his people, quietly get rid of dumbasses, and all the bad sticks to us. When we leave, we take that bad with us, along with our fees . It's a simple arrangement, but it takes real consultants, with real skills, to pull it off. If there's anything to be skeptical about: its whether the consultants engaged are real, and have those skills. As I said: many claim to be us, but few are.

 

I think this paragraph pretty much agrees with what I am saying. When consultants are hired to look across the piece at something one of the main benefits is often that they are providing an unaccountable level of decision making. Or as you put it I suppose, taking the accountability away from where it should be by giving someone the cover of the consultancy for decisions made.

 

In the business world - and I like how you assumed I work in a corporate environment, I don't - I can see a benefit to that at least to the person who is being provided with the cover. However, for the Bills I don't see how that helps them to find the right path or organisational structure for the football operations.

 

You seem to presume only consultants can see things as they are as well, which isn't true in all organisations and certainly wouldn't be true for the Buffalo Bills.