What is the best strategy for correcting a client’s negative behavior toward consultant staff and the client’s unsubstantiated criticism of consultant’s services and deliverables under a long term co
Henry HattenrathProject Consultant| Tectonic Engineering MSA LLCNew York, Ny, United States
A client with a long term professional services contract of consultants is routinely dis-respectful to consultant staff. The client has allowed the organization’s staff to routinely discredit the work of the consultants without the proper courtesy or complete information substantiating the criticism. The client continues to allow the behavior to create a work environment where the project participants find the consultant is solely accountable and liable for cost recovery on all work, including the project deliverables, and the direction and decisions made by the client.
The present strategy by the consultants has been re-active to cost recovery letters and to poor performance letters with no proactive action, strong correspondence or legal intervention. Saving Changes...
It comes down to the value the consulting organization's leadership places on profitability vs. its obligations towards creating a safe, fulfilling work environment for its employees. Assuming the former is not allowed to trump the latter, a meeting between key executives from both parties should be arranged to review the impacts of the behavior and to seek a path forward.
Kiron
...
1 reply by Henry Hattenrath
Aug 06, 2018 5:49 PM
Henry Hattenrath
...
Thanks Kiron. I agree the consultants’ leadership needs to assess the risks, including the opportunity created by its contractual obligation and the threat to their reputation as industry leading consultants and employers. When the threat outweighs the opportunity, the meeting between the client and consultants’ executives may need to consider the action to amicably dissolve the contract.
Should consultants’ leadership continue its contract with the client, it might include the caveat that the project participants be updated on the project plan and project management plan including the organization and reporting structure, participant responsibilities and accountability, and project team core values, professionalism and ethics.
Saving Changes...
Vivek BhatiaPrincipal| The Bhatia GroupOakland, Ca, United States
Cost recovery, meaning the client has asked for money back in written form?
If yes, this is a bad marriage. That would 100% have gone to the execs, CFO, and legal, so they know. Normally I'd agree with Kiron, having been in this exact position several times in my career (no money back request). But if the client is looking for refunds, time for one or both parties to sever the contract.
Once it hits "written request for refund" there's no coming back.
...
1 reply by Henry Hattenrath
Aug 09, 2018 7:05 PM
Henry Hattenrath
...
Vivek
Yes. Cost recovery in written Letters seeking costs for services and consequential cost from contractor changes. But like a bad marriage, there are many factors to consider before completing the final separation. Consultant executives will consider: A) Liability for remaining work and existing claims B) Quantity of FTEs that will be displaced. C) Backlog of work available for displaced FTEs. D) Contract requirements for termination for convenience/default.
Depends if they are paying the bill. What are their reasons for the negative perception? Cost? Lack of Trust?
If they are paying the bill, why would they discredit? if they are not paying the bill, they should be spoken to, failing that, it should be escalated.
...
1 reply by Henry Hattenrath
Aug 06, 2018 5:50 PM
Henry Hattenrath
...
Thanks Sante. While not logical, the client’s behavior is simply attributed to “because then can!” The behavior might include cost and trust issues, but it might also be a defense on the client’s poor management of the project. In any case, I agree that the consultants’ leadership needs to step up to improve the work environment with the client’s leadership.
Saving Changes...
Eric SimmsSenior Program ManagerBaltimore, Maryland, United States
I have often seen this behavior in situations when the consultants' work is better than that of the client's staff, so the client organization tries to denigrate the consultants so it doesn't look bad by comparison. Do you think that's what happening in this case?
...
1 reply by Henry Hattenrath
Aug 06, 2018 5:56 PM
Henry Hattenrath
...
Eric
The client's key personnel may not have the expertise and experience that the consultant knows and offers about the technical subject matter as well as the culture and operational processes of the organization. This behavior could then be a defense mechanism.
Henry
Saving Changes...
Anton OosthuizenSenior Business Analyst / Project Manager| Self EmployedPretoria, Gauteng, South Africa
To the uninformed, the 'consultant' is the one who does the least for the most money and the mere thought of that leads to hostility. Like Eric, I've seen this a lot and there is always one common denominator - a lack of stakeholder analysis i.e. stakeholders are disrespected by the fact that we are here to deliver something and I do not really care what you think about it.
By understanding who your stakeholders are (role, attitude, influence, power) from the outset you can communicate efficiently with them on their respective levels.
There are two main benefits to this: a) they understand what is in it for them and b) they feel valued. No matter what the attitude of a stakeholder is, they should never be ignored, sidelined or marginalized.
Just want to add that it is never too late to do this. So if you sit with a lot of disgruntled stakeholders midway through a project your approach should be the same. Never try and fight the allegations but rather pull the pessimists in and make them part of the process. Sometimes we feel that we do involve everybody but forget to remember that each stakeholder and stakeholder group has different needs and therefore need to be managed accordingly. What makes Anne smile will not always make John smile.
...
1 reply by Raja Shekar
Aug 06, 2018 3:22 AM
Raja Shekar
...
As Anton has pointed out clearly, the Stakeholder Analysis is the very key for managing them,whoever they are wherever they are in the project.
Saving Changes...
Raja ShekarProject Management Consultant| Self EmploymentChennai, Tamilnadu, India
Aug 06, 2018 2:46 AM
Replying to Anton Oosthuizen
...
To the uninformed, the 'consultant' is the one who does the least for the most money and the mere thought of that leads to hostility. Like Eric, I've seen this a lot and there is always one common denominator - a lack of stakeholder analysis i.e. stakeholders are disrespected by the fact that we are here to deliver something and I do not really care what you think about it.
By understanding who your stakeholders are (role, attitude, influence, power) from the outset you can communicate efficiently with them on their respective levels.
There are two main benefits to this: a) they understand what is in it for them and b) they feel valued. No matter what the attitude of a stakeholder is, they should never be ignored, sidelined or marginalized.
Just want to add that it is never too late to do this. So if you sit with a lot of disgruntled stakeholders midway through a project your approach should be the same. Never try and fight the allegations but rather pull the pessimists in and make them part of the process. Sometimes we feel that we do involve everybody but forget to remember that each stakeholder and stakeholder group has different needs and therefore need to be managed accordingly. What makes Anne smile will not always make John smile.
As Anton has pointed out clearly, the Stakeholder Analysis is the very key for managing them,whoever they are wherever they are in the project. Saving Changes...
Drew CraigSr. Agile & Product Coach| VanguardPhiladelphia, Pa, United States
Concur with both Eric and Anton. Often times it is as simple as trying to make others look bad to make oneself look better. And in a scenario where the others are not FTE's within the organization makes it that much more a possibility/opportunity. Saving Changes...
It is at the point where the executives need to meet and resolve the problems.
If the consultant is simply refunding money when the client complains, an unethical client could take that as license to continue complaining.
When I was in college, I worked for a manager who thought this was a perfectly reasonable way to protect his budget. Saving Changes...
Henry HattenrathProject Consultant| Tectonic Engineering MSA LLCNew York, Ny, United States
Aug 05, 2018 4:45 PM
Replying to Kiron Bondale
...
It comes down to the value the consulting organization's leadership places on profitability vs. its obligations towards creating a safe, fulfilling work environment for its employees. Assuming the former is not allowed to trump the latter, a meeting between key executives from both parties should be arranged to review the impacts of the behavior and to seek a path forward.
Kiron
Thanks Kiron. I agree the consultants’ leadership needs to assess the risks, including the opportunity created by its contractual obligation and the threat to their reputation as industry leading consultants and employers. When the threat outweighs the opportunity, the meeting between the client and consultants’ executives may need to consider the action to amicably dissolve the contract.
Should consultants’ leadership continue its contract with the client, it might include the caveat that the project participants be updated on the project plan and project management plan including the organization and reporting structure, participant responsibilities and accountability, and project team core values, professionalism and ethics. Saving Changes...
Henry HattenrathProject Consultant| Tectonic Engineering MSA LLCNew York, Ny, United States
Aug 05, 2018 6:26 PM
Replying to Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
...
Depends if they are paying the bill. What are their reasons for the negative perception? Cost? Lack of Trust?
If they are paying the bill, why would they discredit? if they are not paying the bill, they should be spoken to, failing that, it should be escalated.
Thanks Sante. While not logical, the client’s behavior is simply attributed to “because then can!” The behavior might include cost and trust issues, but it might also be a defense on the client’s poor management of the project. In any case, I agree that the consultants’ leadership needs to step up to improve the work environment with the client’s leadership. Saving Changes...
