[thelist] In-house vs outsourced credibility (was: my company got ripped off)

[Heather Quinn]

It's an ego thing, often.  In-house talent can have too much 
credibility, from many decision-makers' POV's.  By going outside for 
some of the work in-house people can do, executives prove to themselves 
that in-house people are not irreplaceable, etc., and therefore not such 
a threat to them personally (their egos, that is).   Many people who've 
risen to exec status have done so because instead of developing skills, 
they've put their time and energy into getting to the point of being 
allowed to boss people around (notice I don't say "learning how to boss 
people around").  Seeing and dealing with the bright, talented, capable 
people working under them is frightening.  And many execs therefore end 
up spending some of their time trying to keep their talented underlings 
somewhat hobbled.

If you're planning on trying to get more work of the kind you want in 
your in-house capacity, it helps to keep people aware of what you've 
done for them in the past, but not to make a big deal about what you're 
capable of doing for them in the future.  This kind of half lie is 
reassuring to people who are threatened by your talent.  When in-house 
people promote their own talents and skills directly, bosses may "read" 
it as gloating that they're not capable of the same (often true), and 
that they should be working for their employees, rather than vice versa 
(also often true).

Boerner, Brian J wrote:

>...I'm an accomplished in-house designer that is bascially ignored when it comes time to work on our external site - an outside firm is the designer of choice. It's strange but people on the outside have more credibility than in-house folks and often it's not hard-won credibility....
>  
>


-- 
Cheers,

Heather Quinn
heather at windyhilldesign.net
http://www.windyhilldesign.net