“Did you get the answer already? Do we still need to wait?” Progress in corporate IT can feel frustratingly slow compared to the rapid momentum, for example, in IT consulting. It’s like corporates have an unspoken speed limit that everyone’s agreed not to break. This difference isn’t just anecdotal; it’s especially strikingly visible with the people entering a corporate scene from consultancy. Most have such a cultural shock within a few weeks, and some never recover. Yes, I’m making some severe generalizations here, but hang on for a moment, and you’ll see what I mean. Ex- and current consultants regularly report completing in days or weeks, what established corporate teams might tackle in months. But why does this happen? Why is it so hard to fast in a corporate setting?
The Weight of Hierarchical Decision-Making
Corporate settings are notoriously bureaucratic, where decision-making requires input from multiple departments and levels and, often, rounds of “approval” from several senior stakeholders. While meant to safeguard decisions and promote collaboration, these layers often stall action. For example, in consulting, by contrast, decisions are streamlined; the consultant-client model typically involves a decision-maker at the client’s end who can swiftly approve recommendations, allowing projects to move forward faster.
A high emphasis on hierarchy can indicate a risk-averse environment, where managers are cautious about accountability and tend to defer to higher-ups, often at the expense of agility. The slow pace can thus signal a culture that values predictability over rapid innovation and where individual agency is compromised by layered oversight. The downside of this heavily hierarchical, risk-averse structure is that it fundamentally slows progress and weakens the organization’s innovation ability. Opportunities are delayed to a point where they lose relevance.
Process Overload and the Comfort of Established Routines
In corporations, processes become never-ending rituals. Not all processes, however horrible they feel, are destructive, even if sometimes you start to think, do we need all this when, from status meetings to progress reports to internal reviews, every action is prescribed and somewhat monitored, leading to rigid workflows? These routines are frequently immune to change, regardless of efficiency or lack thereof. Consultants, on the other hand, have been taught to evaluate outcomes rather than processes. They operate in a project or time-based structure, focusing on delivering tangible results within strict timelines, often by any means necessary.
A Misguided Focus on “Face Time” and Presence Over Productivity
Corporate cultures, especially traditional ones, often equate productivity with time spent in the office rather than the quality of work produced. Many corporate employees must be visible, attend meetings, and follow an unspoken protocol of looking busy. At the same time, a company can miss the accurate data used in critical functions or projects. Consultants are typically hired to solve specific problems within a set timeframe; as a result, they’re measured on outcomes, not face time. So why are we approaching consultants differently than our own people? What am I missing here? This difference means consultants maximize every minute they spend working, while corporate employees may feel obliged to “fill time” rather than make every moment count.
This emphasis on presence over productivity speaks to an outdated corporate value system. It shows a culture that rewards loyalty and longevity over results. This “clock-watching” mentality slows corporate productivity and creates a workplace culture that undervalues efficiency, creativity, and even new talent.
The Siloed Structure Stalling Interdepartmental Collaboration
Silos, silos, silos! Corporations are notoriously compartmentalized. Each department functions as a self-contained unit, with little incentive or framework for agile cross-functional collaboration. A project, initiative, or even a relatively simple task requiring input from various teams can take months as each team works within its own timelines and priorities. Consultants, by contrast, are often able to cut across silos and drive interdepartmental cooperation, as they are brought in as third parties with the authority to pull necessary resources together quickly. The mentality is more about protecting one’s territories than encouraging holistic thinking.
A Risk-Averse Mindset That Blocks Innovation and Initiative
Corporations typically reward stability and adherence to protocol. Decisions are rarely bold; they’re calculated and safe, aimed at maintaining the current status rather than pushing boundaries. Conversely, consultants are brought in to solve problems quickly, with an outsider’s objectivity and a high tolerance for risk. They often have already built and piloted innovative solutions that corporate teams may shy away from due to fear of failure or lack of authority to take bold actions. It is like company culture fears mistakes and penalizes deviations from the norm, ultimately stifling innovation.
Are you maintaining structure or delivering value?
Ok, the comparison with IT consulting isn’t entirely fair, and bureaucracy, routines, and processes can actually add value in some cases. And no, a risk-averse mindset isn’t necessarily wrong, and speed isn’t the only marker for success. However, the slower pace in corporate settings does reveal a fundamental issue: many organizations have lost sight of outcome-oriented work and how to measure it. As bureaucracy, hierarchy, and rigid processes accumulate, corporate culture becomes more about maintaining the organization’s structure than delivering value. For corporations to compete effectively, they need a cultural overhaul that values agility, efficiency, and trust in employees’ decision-making capabilities. Only by evolving from a rule-bound, risk-averse culture can corporations expect to keep pace in a world where adaptability, speed, and innovation reign supreme.
