Picture credit: mamjodh
Do the big names in a field really deliver consistently great results, or would their clients be better advised to employ their lesser-known competitors?
This question first came to me a couple of weeks ago while I was on holiday in Florence and spending a couple of hours exploring the hugely impressive Salone dei Cinquecento, the most imposing chamber in the Palazzo Vecchio.
Despite truly wonderful artwork and architecture, the room is a testament to the failure of two of the biggest names in the Italian Renaissance: Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo; both of whom failed to deliver their commissioned work for the chamber.
For sure Leonardo and Michelangelo have left a great legacy of outstanding art and science. But, for one reason and another, they let their Florentine clients down. Five hundred years on, we can draw some interesting parallels and lessons to be learned:
- Michelangelo “walked off the job” to work for another client (Pope Julius II)
- Michelangelo’s legacy includes many part-finished projects
- Leonardo experimented with radical new techniques that failed (at the client’s expense)
Perhaps now you can see why I made the connection between some of the biggest names of the Renaissance and some of the big names of today. Please note that when I talk about “big names” this is not a question about size of organization, I am really talking about big reputations – either individuals or companies – delivering the goods, consistently.
I honestly wonder though how many clients are still disappointed by big names failing to deliver. Do big reputations always produce great results, or do you get better value from the unsung heroes ?
