Contractors

Oh yes, the infamous government contractors. Why do we have these? Is the question I've been asking myself since I had the wonderful pleasure (sarcasm inserted) to work with them about this time last year.

First of all, they are all so full of it! You show me a contractor and I'll show you a person who can BS their way out of jail with a monopoly card. They walk around re-inventing the wheel and taking credit for it. They make your projects last 3 times as long as they should, because ultimately, all they are trying to do is extend their contracts. Therefore, the longer the project lasts, the longer they stay on board, the longer they get paid.

Here are some of the techniques they used while I worked with them:

Have meetings all day! Every day! The more the better, here is why - meetings assure that nothing is getting done, so you spend all day talking about what is required, but no time is actually spent on moving the project forward. If someone suggests a brilliant idea that will cut the man hours in half, they find holes in the suggestion, and argue until they get their way. Which brings me to my next point...

 Long discussions (a.k.a. arguments). They will sit there and talk circles around any topic because that is what they are trained to do. Again, the point is to extend that project, which extends the contract.

Ignore all suggestions from the government agency. Some contractors forget who works for whom, and they treat the government employees like the incompetent people that stereotypes say we are, because without our input, the project cannot  move forward. 

Meetings about meetings! It is not uncommon for contractors to want to get together with you to discuss what will be discussed AGAIN in a later meeting. So hey, lets talk about what you wanna talk about in that meeting at 2pm...what?! It's 1pm, can't you wait another hour and let me do my job? Anyone else think this is an utter waste of tax payer dollars?

I admit that sometimes contractors are needed, especially when an organization doesn't have the internal talent to accomplish the task at hand. I once worked with contractors from a different company who actually made things better, then again they were computer guys. BUT here is MY problem - when we hire contractors to do a job that should clearly be left to those who are already embedded in the organization, for instance; Leadership Development.

What would a contractor know about developing employees in an organization that they don't belong to? When you have these tools sitting in a meeting, asking what xyz means, and your mouth hits the floor because you're thinking...Really? You are making it mandatory for employees to take a course on xyz, and you don't even know what it is?! Then they develop an entire curriculum based on what other government organizations require in their own Leadership Development programs.

I know what you're thinking, all government organizations are created equal, furthermore, Leadership Development should have the same requirements across the board, but I think not. Different organizations require different skills in order for their leaders to be effective and accomplish their jobs. Therefore, the best way to develop leaders in an organization is by first obtaining the expert opinion of those who have been working there long enough to understand the inner workings of the company. What is its primary mission? Who are they serving? What skills are effective with what job titles?

Contractors wouldn't know the answers to these questions because they work for a contracting company that works very differently from a government agency. Furthermore, their primary objective conflicts with the government. Their objective is to make their contract last as long as possible, therefore wasting precious government resources that you and I are paying for through taxes.

So why have contractors? Is it because everyone is right and government employees are too lazy/incompetent to do the job themselves? Or because it's too expensive to hire someone full time and pay the benefits? Or because ultimately, a contract is only as good as it is renewed?

I don't have the answer to this, I only know that I don't agree with their practices and wish that they could leave the agency's development to those who belong there, those whose careers will be affected by the changes.