Why Companies Bring in Outsiders to Review Your Work

The realization that one’s work will be evaluated by some external consultant can be a scary experience for anyone. Will there be a reorganization? Will the managers be dissatisfied with our work? Will we lose our jobs?
More often than not, the answers will prove less ominous, but the feeling remains.

Indeed, throughout Corporate America, whenever any changes arise as a result of pressure to cut costs, the onset of technological transformations, laying off employees, mergers, or a new focus on other business activities, consulting firms are frequently invited to help evaluate the organization’s workflow and offer solutions.


The idea behind hiring an external firm from the manager’s standpoint is straightforward: while it may be difficult for internal teams to take an unbiased look at what’s been going on for a while, it may be helpful in such situations to get some distance from all that.

Why companies turn to outside experts

The review process is generally presented as an opportunity for operational improvement rather than a judgment on employee performance. Management can employ outside experts to create a diagram of overlap, analyze efficiency, or make recommendations on team structures.

In fact, according to a report in the Journal of Strategic Information Systems, firms often employ outside consultants because they can provide specialized expertise and unbiased insight, especially during periods of organizational change. Additionally, consultants often help companies align their structures with strategy.
In the case of U.S. firms operating under uncertain economic conditions and pressured to adopt AI solutions and operate more efficiently, the allure is clear.

There's another benefit of consultants that extends beyond external advice. Outside input can also hold significant weight because it comes from a supposedly neutral third party. Of course, impartiality doesn't always come across as such to employees.

Why outside reviews can trigger anxiety

To employees, having someone from the outside judge their deliverables or analyze their jobs can be very personal, despite assurances from the leadership that it is otherwise.

Employees might view such an evaluation as an implication that they lack sufficient knowledge. Other employees may see it as a precursor to lay-offs or organizational restructuring. As noted in the European Management Journal, employees are likely to view external analysis as an intrusion, leading to distrust and insecurity, which can then result in reluctance for change. This reaction is directly related to employees' feelings about their professional identity and security.

This psychological aspect cannot be overlooked. If workers believe they are being evaluated by individuals who have no idea about the real-life dynamics of their duties, this could impact their motivation, productivity, and engagement.

The trust problem organizations often overlook

Another issue that firms usually do not give much consideration to is the effect that such a review might have on trust issues. In case employees think that managers want to involve external parties in the process, as they lack confidence in their own teams, then the level of suspicion may increase considerably.

According to the Journal of Strategic Information Systems, knowledge sharing processes occur more easily between internal employees compared to those involving employees and external specialists. Such differences may form communication barriers, making suggestions made by consultants much more difficult to execute.
In other words, a positive solution may be ignored by employees. Employees might withhold relevant information, become detached, and doubt their manager's intentions.

Why communication can make or break the process

The experts have repeatedly noted that the distinction between a fruitful and an unfruitful review largely lies in its process.
Transparency is important. When managers make clear their reasons for bringing consultants in, what is going to be assessed, and the role of employee feedback in decision-making, uncertainty usually fades away.
Inclusion plays an important role, as well. People are likely to be much more open when they see themselves as contributors rather than objects under scrutiny.

This point needs to be emphasized even more strongly in light of the fact that employees usually know things that the consultants do not. Effective change requires the integration of both kinds of expertise into one process.

What employees should take from it

The presence of consultants does not necessarily mean any problem. It usually means there are other issues within the organization, which do not pertain to the performance issues of particular workers.

However, the feeling of uncertainty among employees regarding external reviews is justified. It is always claimed by studies that such a process might influence employees’ motivation, trust, and overall atmosphere in the office if it is not conducted properly. Therefore, proper communication and involvement of employees are as significant as improving efficiency through consultants.

It should be kept in mind by organizations that consulting might enhance their work significantly, yet ignoring the emotional factor might cause more trouble than any efficiency audit could possibly address.
At the same time, employees need to understand that consulting has not only operational but also strategic implications for the organization.