Middleman takes centre stage
The
trend for outsourcing has created a dramatic increase in 'middlemania' - and it's a disease that is
infecting all of us.
Look
no further, SallySue, say
I, my enthusiasm roused violently from its stupor. Pray tell me more.
Well,
it turns out Fizzgig has
been appointed to write a report by a specialist consultancy, Corporium or some such, which had
been commissioned originally by a government agency after a campaign by a
department of state in the wake of a report by a committee of MPs.
"So
it's for the Government?" I ask, lost in a labyrinth of sub-contracting.
"Um, I'll have to check, but that's what we were told," she replies.
"Corporium felt it
needed some additional expertise from us."
"And
you felt you needed some additional exper-,"
I query, momentarily forgetting the second part of the sentence.
"Well,
it's just to give us something to work from," fizzes JillyJenny, before rediscovering her piercing shafts
of charm. "We felt it might be useful to have you on board."
We
know this because we are dependent on them. The joy of being the agency's
sub-contractor's outsourcing partner's all-purpose word-fountain is that we
gain insight into the whole splendid racket from the bottom up. We are the end
of the chain. Someone has to originate all these words, this stuff, the
reports, the bumpf that
goes under the name of information, before it is passed down the estuary to be
basted, tweaked, pummelled, varnished, and caressed on its way out into the sea
of general consumption. We understand how modern work likes to travel.
Naturally,
we are grateful for the business. And the sport, too: count the middlemen can
be an enjoyable game. Yet I must confess that in idle moments, we do sometimes
wonder if it might be better value if the organisation that wanted the work
done spoke directly to the people who end up doing it; the middleman's cut,
after all, is rather more than a flesh wound.
In
less enlightened times, it was held that the more fingers in the pie, the
higher the 'transactional costs'. Henry Ford went as far as owning the rubber
plantations for his car tyres, and the railroads that transported it to his
factories. But now we know better. It is far more efficient to outsource than
to 'do'. We like our pie well-pawed.
My
example is admittedly a small one. Yet can the media and information trades be
alone in witnessing a dramatic increase in middlemen in recent years? I doubt
it. The spread of computers has created a limitless capacity to pass on work to
someone else. And so the economy thrums with the sound of specialist layers
being constructed between producer and consumer.
Yet,
for a generation reared on hard work, I think the outsourcing habit is also
creating a peculiar ambivalence about the 'doing' of work. Doing work in the
sense of producing something, transforming one thing into another, is coming to
be seen as a bit seedy, a bit of a slog, a bit like yesterday's game. Thinking,
advising, managing, manipulating - that's the work of the future. Because
someone who might have more specialist knowledge than us is available just a
few clicks away, we dither and outsource. The goal is to make ourselves the
superiors of those that actually 'do'.
So,
anyway, scarcely had Sue or was it Sally or Polly gone from the line than I set
to work.
I
e-mailed a hard-up freelancer about the possibility of writing an obscure,
important report that I thought was for the Government, which came via a couple
of middlemen. Good budget.
We are all middlemen now.