Is Your In-House Expert’s Ego Costing Your Company Money? – Part 1 of 2

“This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us”. – Western Union Internal Memo, 1876. Isn’t it amazing how those narrow minded individuals who wrote that memo, rubbished an innovation that was destined to change the world? If anyone had taken them seriously where would we all be today…without the telephone?

The foregoing is why I argue that companies need to set up systems to help their in-house experts act in the best interests of the organisation.

(Original version of this article, was published on this static html page on: 7th September 2007)

Who Is An "In-House Expert"?

Here’s my "definition": Any employee – whether temporary, contract or permanent – whose opinion – based on his/her area of recognised expertise, will be sought and used to decide what the company should do, with respect to a particular line of action being considered.

They (i.e. in-house experts) are often given the responsibility of providing related support to other employees using their knowledge and expertise, to evaluate possible strategies, technologies or solutions that the company could adopt to IMPROVE her ability to achieve valued corporate goals.

Common examples include IT managers and their lieutenants.

Sometimes companies outsource their needs in technical fields such as IT, keeping a skeletal structure in-house. Other times they engage consultants on a contract basis. And of course some companies feel more comfortable having a full fledged IT department in some cases with emphasis on development of in-house software solutions.

Other types of in-house experts are the Project Managers, HR managers, PR managers, Marketing Managers, Business Development Managers, People /Organisational Development Managers, Engineering Managers etc.

These individuals would usually be depended upon by various categories of decision makers (including their fellow in-house experts) in the company to EVALUATE – for instance – any new idea or initiative/concept being considered for adoption.

And more often than not, it is whatever they say that gets taken as the "final word", so to say.

But that’s not bad in itself – so long as the in-house expert maintains a dispassionate and professional (UN-BIASED) disposition in giving his/her advice or recommendations.

The Problem: In-House Experts’ Can Sometimes Be Afflicted With "Experts’ Blindness"!

Do you have in-house experts whose word you take as gospel truth?

If you know them well, and are sure of their competence and objectivity, that would be a safe thing to do.

But in life, nothing stays exactly the same. Much as you may trust and like your "expert", s/he may not always be able to deliver to the same high standards.

Why?

Because s/he – like the rest of us – is only human!

And as a human being, when you get used to being "the expert", in a situation where people often readily accept what you say/think, it can get quite intoxicating.

That can make you get just a little "too carried away" sometimes.

Only Few People Can Resist Feeling This Way Every Now and Then

Your in-house expert is just as prone as everyone else. Chances are if/when s/he does slip up, it will be inadvertent rather than deliberate. Whatever may be the cause, the potential damage to you/your organisation in the event that this does happen (and it CAN!) is the most crucial thing to consider.

What if the advice/tip given you by your "in-house expert" turns out to be based on statistics s/he checked two weeks earlier, AND which s/he assumed would stay the same for at least 30 days, as had been his/her experience over that past five years?

But what if THIS time, due to a slight change in market regulations late last week (that your expert did not bother to monitor since s/he "knew" it was the same old "stuff"), your plans based on the expert’s advice had fallen through?

Just think for a moment what it could mean, if this were to happen to you.

The point I’m making is ANYONE of us can use past experience to take intelligent decisions. BUT the key to our being consistently successful will be CONTINUED vigilance to changes that MAY occur and which could have implications for the decisions we take.

Without staying alert to unexpected changes or new developments (some previously unknown to even the most experienced among us) that could occur, we stand little chance of achieving success with any degree of consistency.

And that’s why we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to our environment!

Anybody/anything can help us in this process. The problem with some in-house experts is that they let their egos get in the way – AND block their view.

Whenever this happens, the organisations that depend on them lose out as a result.

Why Do In-House Experts Sometimes Behave This Way?

As I said earlier, the truth is they are only human. We all have our little attacks of insecurity every now and then.

And that makes can make a person inadvertently hold opinions/give recommendations based LESS on objectivity, and more on how s/he "perceives" that an idea/concept/initiative "THREATENS" his/her status as an in-house expert.

A person advocating a new idea/concept or initiative may find it useful to ensure the in-house expert believes s/he can end up looking BETTER by letting the idea reach decision makers, instead of opposing it.

But it may not be easy to do this – especially if one is an outsider, like a consultant or service provider offering his/her services in a unique area e.g. development of a software, website etc.