The great ad man, David Ogilvy, once gave sage advice about the use of outside experts:

Don't hire a dog and bark yourself.

Like most consultants, I can relate to that.

Life in the doghouse

A while ago, my firm completed a project for a municipality. We redesigned its medical, pension, and disability plans, improving benefits and reducing costs. 

But we also suggested removing duplicate coverage from payroll deduction and issuing an RFP to find single providers. After all, there was no reason to have six competing hospital-indemnity plans or more than three dozen 403(b) plan vendors. 

Employees we surveyed said they felt overwhelmed by salespeople – who, in some cases, failed to communicate that options like cancer insurance were voluntary. Worst of all, most employees, faced with so many 403(b) plan choices, opted simply not to save.

Consolidation, we proposed, would solve many problems. A competitive RFP would weed out overlapping plans and deals that were just plain bad. The city could offer well thought-out options, sold by vendors that were screened and vetted. Employees would have access to the most favorable plan features, with the lowest fees and loads. Even the vendors, with open access to all 9,000 city employees, would come out ahead.

Make sense? Not to some board members. 

Removing local businesses from the plan, they said, would "send the wrong message."  Others worried about infringing an employee's "right to choose." "I don't care if some of these plans are rip-offs," one member said. "Our people should be able to do whatever they want with their money" (an attitude that clearly did not extend to health care).

In the end, the city rejected our recommendations. Are its employees better off? No – many still buy coverage they don't understand and, arguably, don't need. And, to this day, only about 20% participate in 403(b) – a worst-case scenario for thousands of police and fire employees who want, and need, to retire early.

Hiring a dog

Why would an employer retain a consultant – only to choose not to take our advice? 

After all, we're hired for our knowledge, experience, and, most important, objectivity. Using proprietary tools, like special surveys, we evenhandedly assess both employer and employee concerns, and stimulate "clean sheet of paper" thinking. What we bring to the table is the ability to balance the needs of all stakeholders.  This third-party perspective means a lot – especially with problems that seem intractable, or in environments that are skeptical or adversarial. 

Still, at times, consulting is just a dog's life. We can come up with what seems like the perfect solution – only to wind up muzzled. 

Out of operation

Like when a service company wanted to end abuse of sick leave and workers comp. This, the CEO said, was his "top priority," and he was willing to "look at anything and everything" to achieve it.

So, when the data revealed links between employee absences and certain management practices, we naturally suggested new standards, measures, and accountabilities. The changes could help reduce incidence and duration by nearly 20%. 

But Operations balked. It didn't want to risk alienating field managers by asking them to adopt new practices. Besides, the VP argued, wasn't this supposed to be "an HR and benefits study?"

So the proposal was rejected. And, top priority notwithstanding, excessive absence and workers comp costs persist to this day.

Nursing our wounds

Or how about the regional health care system that sought to end 401(k) contribution refunds to highly paid physicians and administrators.

After extensive employee input, we designed a tiered match, with automatic "seed" money placed in each person's account. The solution would have both eliminated the need to return contributions and changed savings patterns, creating higher overall benefits -- a classic win-win scenario. 

But, during our presentation to the benefits committee, the chief administrator was visibly distressed. Eventually, he stood up to interrupt.

"I'm offended," he announced, "by the suggestion I direct any more money to my bubble-headed nurses."  All the air seemed sucked out of the room.

"But, sir," I explained, "it's your 'bubble-headed nurses' who keep your doctors from getting their maximum benefits."

"I see," he said as he walked to the exit, turning to add, "Have I ever met you before?"

"No, sir."

"Good," he replied. "And I hope never to see you again."

At which point he slammed the door, bringing both the meeting, and chances of implementing the new plan, to an abrupt close.

Howling in the holiday spirit

There are certainly other examples – like the benefits manager who gave up 10% in renewal savings rather than "confront" the carrier rep. Or the company that didn't implement a $7 million benefits change – to save $50,000 in communication fees. Fortunately, these are the exceptions. Our clients usually score big in plan enhancement and cost reduction.  

Still, like David Ogilvy, I'm haunted by memories of being the hired dog, only to be restrained by clients who did their own barking. 

And I'll bet that you've been in either the same position – or, on the other side, the client who received advice you couldn't use.

In light of the upcoming holiday season, would you willing to share some good will?  If you're a consultant, tell EBN about a time your client took another direction, and why you think things turned.  Or, if you're in HR or benefits, share your views on a consulting engagement gone wrong – and what you think should have been done differently. Simply click the "Comment" link above.

Please use this forum to provide insight into your experiences.  If you do, we can all learn a lot as we close out the year, leading to better understanding all around. 

Now that would be something to bark about!

Corey Sherman is managing partner at Strategic Planning Associates, LLC, an HR-Benefits consulting firm in Atlanta.