Before you decide
Why bring in someone from outside at all?
You have good people. Experienced executives who know your institution. The question is legitimate – and it deserves an honest answer rather than a sales brochure.
The question is usually asked too late.
When an institution calls in someone from outside, there is rarely time for first principles. The supervisory board meeting is fixed, the programme is running, the figures are off. A decision is made because one has to be made.
This page answers the question beforehand: when external support pays off and when it does not. Six reasons that actually tipped the balance in my mandates – and three situations in which I advise against it.
Not every problem needs someone from outside. But every unsolved problem keeps costing money.
Six reasons that genuinely hold
-
Capacity, not competence
Your people can do it. They simply have no time for it, because day-to-day business carries on. An initiative that nobody owns full-time becomes a side project. And side projects do not get finished.
-
The view you cannot have from inside
Anyone who has worked in the same institution for ten years no longer sees the detours that have grown over time. That is not a weakness, it is habit. From outside, they become apparent in the first week.
-
What nobody inside can say out loud
Every institution has statements that many think and nobody says – because they concern colleagues, departments, sometimes the executive board itself. Someone who is not part of the organisation can say them without risking their own career.
-
Pace from day one
An internal reassignment requires a successor, a handover and an induction period – and opens a gap elsewhere. Someone who already knows the situation starts working in the first week, not learning.
-
Patterns from several institutions
What looks like an isolated case in your own institution usually is not. Anyone who has seen the same situation in several banks recognises it sooner – and knows which solution held up there and which only looked good.
-
Whoever comes from outside will leave again
That sounds like a disadvantage and is the real advantage. Someone who is not seeking a position in the institution has no reason to embellish results, avoid conflicts or secure allies.
And when you do not need anyone from outside.
Three situations in which I advise against it in the first conversation. It costs me a mandate – and saves you a disappointment.
The decision has already been made
What is being sought then is not analysis but confirmation. That requires courage, not a fee – and if you want a counterpart who challenges rather than confirms, that is sparring, not a project.
Someone in-house could do it
If an executive could take on the task and only lacks the time released from other duties, releasing that time is the solution. It costs less, and you keep the person afterwards.
The issue is people, not organisation
Avoiding an uncomfortable personnel decision by launching a project only postpones it – at greater cost and with a larger audience. I do not accept that kind of assignment.
And what about artificial intelligence?
A fair question, and one I ask myself. A target state, a roadmap, a risk list – what used to take weeks of consulting work, a language model now delivers in minutes. That is not a threat, it is a tool, and I use it myself.
But transformations have never failed because of the plan. They fail because decisions are postponed, because objections come too late and because, in the end, nobody draws the uncomfortable conclusion. There is no model for that – it takes someone who is in the room when things get uncomfortable.
What I use AI for and what I do not:
Large firm or boutique?
Both have their place. The question is not which model is better, but which one fits your initiative.
A large consulting firm
The right fit if you need:
- many workstreams at once, across several locations
- a report that carries a well-known name in front of boards or the supervisory authority
- specialist knowledge from several disciplines in parallel
- capacity that has to scale at short notice
Slotta Consulting
The right fit if you need:
- one person with leadership experience – whoever makes the proposal also leads the mandate
- implementation as part of the assignment, not as a follow-up offer
- knowledge that stays with your people rather than with the consulting firm
- an agreed end instead of a next phase
And if your institution already has its own consulting unit?
Many banks have an in-house consulting unit, and within a banking group there is often a group-level one as well. That is a strength: both know your institution, your systems and your governing bodies better than any external adviser – and they remain when the initiative ends.
What neither can usually do is a matter of their position. The in-house unit typically reports to the same executive board whose decisions it is meant to scrutinise. The group-level consultancy sees many institutions – but all from the same banking group, with the same requirements and often the same blind spots. A view from outside the group replaces neither of them. It complements them.
I know both sides, because I have worked within a banking group myself. I step in where an uncomfortable assessment from outside takes effect faster than one from inside – and I leave as soon as your own people can take over.
Who is coming from outside here
Coming from outside is not enough. What matters is who comes – and whether he has seen the situation from inside before.
Prefer to check who this is first?
Your next step
-
Is an enquiry worthwhile?
Seven statements, about 90 seconds, an honest assessment – before you pick up the phone. Not every need is a mandate.
Go to the mandate self-assessment -
Where does your institution really stand?
Five specialist self-assessments on sales, projects, transformation, change and decision-making. Four minutes each, no registration.
Go to the self-assessments -
What I take on in practice
Three clearly defined service areas: Interim Management, Transformation & Change, Sparring & Advisory.
Go to services
Thirty minutes. Then you know where you stand.
Describe the situation to me. I will tell you what I see – and whether I am the right person for it. If not, I will tell you so in the same conversation.