Last year I recommended a contractor (who I had worked with before on the same account) to clientco to run a project in conjunction with their primary supplier. Beancounting reasons meant the contractor’s own contract had to be administered through the supplier and would be paid for by the project he would be running. Due to the potentially unusual situation this would instigate, I recommended that the whole arrangement be open-book so that everyone would get a fair deal. This is not unusual where the primary supplier is simply procuring services on clientco’s behalf.
The open-book arrangement did not work and we were aware that the primary supplier was taking a significant premium out of the arrangement. I expressed my dissatisfaction with this, given that clientco had effectively sourced the contractor and the supplier was just administering a purchase order. I gave an example of the type of value-chain I would have seen as a fair representation of the arrangement – e.g. clientco pays 100%, supplier pays agency 90%, agency pays contractor 80% (the actual figures were more like 100%, 80%, 75%). This was done verbally, completely openly in clientco/supplier programme meetings and I also expressed the same sentiment in an email.
Four weeks later, both myself and the contractor were accused of unethical behaviour by questioning the value chain. I understand that (I never saw the official complaint) I was accused by one of the supplier’s directors of using insider information to “manipulate my colleagues rates up”. One of clientco’s directors (who I have had a working relationship with for several years) read the single email above out of context and agreed my contract should be immediately terminated. This was all done “second-hand” via clientco’s programme manager - clientco’s director did not even bother to speak to me to understand more of the context. Only with the support of the programme manager and other clientco directors was termination avoided.
This experience has left me severely disillusioned –
1) That someone I have known for years and would have thought I could rely on to “back me up” could so quickly and willingly ruin my reputation and affect my business on the basis of a single email taken out of context without even having the courtesy to discuss the situation with me directly.
2) That people will willingly and ruthlessly use any potentially incriminating “evidence” out of context to achieve the aim of destroying my reputation and impacting my business.
3) In the longer term, I now feel I cannot trust the people I thought I could trust and that in place of open, frank and honest verbal/written communication I now have to adopt the kind of behaviour I feel intrinsically repulsed by – slopey-shouldering, backside covering and bullsh***ing.
I have had a follow-up meeting with clientco’s director. I said that it was an unfortunate view of the world that people would choose to use things out of context for the purposes of delivering retribution. His reply “that’s business, you deal with it or you find another line of work”.
Is he right? Is business really that cynical where we have to cheat, lie and back-stab each other to scrabble ahead?
I had this ethos that business thrives on building good working relationships, about all parties getting a fair deal, treating others as you would be treated etc. One of the reasons I became a contractor was that I was starting to become disillusioned with the “do as I say, not what I do” approach to large-company business.
Am I just totally naive and idealistic (I was certainly naive to give someone the opportunity to carry out this attack)? Should I change and “play the game” just as long as the money comes in even if I have the personal belief that the behaviour I’m adopting is wrong? Am I just in the wrong game? Opinions appreciated!
The open-book arrangement did not work and we were aware that the primary supplier was taking a significant premium out of the arrangement. I expressed my dissatisfaction with this, given that clientco had effectively sourced the contractor and the supplier was just administering a purchase order. I gave an example of the type of value-chain I would have seen as a fair representation of the arrangement – e.g. clientco pays 100%, supplier pays agency 90%, agency pays contractor 80% (the actual figures were more like 100%, 80%, 75%). This was done verbally, completely openly in clientco/supplier programme meetings and I also expressed the same sentiment in an email.
Four weeks later, both myself and the contractor were accused of unethical behaviour by questioning the value chain. I understand that (I never saw the official complaint) I was accused by one of the supplier’s directors of using insider information to “manipulate my colleagues rates up”. One of clientco’s directors (who I have had a working relationship with for several years) read the single email above out of context and agreed my contract should be immediately terminated. This was all done “second-hand” via clientco’s programme manager - clientco’s director did not even bother to speak to me to understand more of the context. Only with the support of the programme manager and other clientco directors was termination avoided.
This experience has left me severely disillusioned –
1) That someone I have known for years and would have thought I could rely on to “back me up” could so quickly and willingly ruin my reputation and affect my business on the basis of a single email taken out of context without even having the courtesy to discuss the situation with me directly.
2) That people will willingly and ruthlessly use any potentially incriminating “evidence” out of context to achieve the aim of destroying my reputation and impacting my business.
3) In the longer term, I now feel I cannot trust the people I thought I could trust and that in place of open, frank and honest verbal/written communication I now have to adopt the kind of behaviour I feel intrinsically repulsed by – slopey-shouldering, backside covering and bullsh***ing.
I have had a follow-up meeting with clientco’s director. I said that it was an unfortunate view of the world that people would choose to use things out of context for the purposes of delivering retribution. His reply “that’s business, you deal with it or you find another line of work”.
Is he right? Is business really that cynical where we have to cheat, lie and back-stab each other to scrabble ahead?
I had this ethos that business thrives on building good working relationships, about all parties getting a fair deal, treating others as you would be treated etc. One of the reasons I became a contractor was that I was starting to become disillusioned with the “do as I say, not what I do” approach to large-company business.
Am I just totally naive and idealistic (I was certainly naive to give someone the opportunity to carry out this attack)? Should I change and “play the game” just as long as the money comes in even if I have the personal belief that the behaviour I’m adopting is wrong? Am I just in the wrong game? Opinions appreciated!
)
Comment