GLG's Inefficient Onboarding: Why Experts Get Burned Out Quickly

Gerson Lehrman Group (GLG) remains one of the largest expert networks globally, connecting businesses with subject matter experts for consultations and insights. However, behind its impressive client roster lies a concerning trend: expert burnout and high turnover rates stemming from an inefficient onboarding process. This article examines why many experts quickly become disillusioned after joining GLG's network and what alternatives exist in today's research landscape.

The Lengthy Onboarding Labyrinth

New experts joining GLG's network often face a multi-stage onboarding process that can span weeks or even months. This process typically includes:

• Initial application and screening
• Extensive compliance documentation
• Multiple verification steps
• Profile creation and keyword optimization
• Training on platform mechanics
• Regulatory and confidentiality briefings

According to former GLG experts interviewed for this article, this process can take 3-4 weeks even for straightforward cases, with more complex industry backgrounds requiring additional verification and compliance checks.

"I spent almost six weeks getting onboarded, only to discover the actual consultation opportunities weren't aligned with my expertise," shares Dr. Sarah Chen, a former pharmaceutical executive who joined GLG's network in 2021.

Compensation Misalignment and Transparency Issues

One of the most significant sources of expert frustration stems from GLG's compensation structure. While GLG charges clients premium rates for expert access, the experts themselves often receive a fraction of what clients pay.

The Broker Markup Reality

Industry estimates suggest GLG and similar traditional expert networks typically charge clients between $1,000-1,500 per hour for expert consultations, while experts may receive $200-400 per hour. This broker markup, sometimes reaching 300-400%, creates immediate value misalignment.

James Harrington, a former tech executive who participated in GLG's network for 18 months, notes: "It was eye-opening to learn from a client that they were paying over three times what I received for our calls. That transparency gap made me question the relationship."

False Expectations vs. Reality

During recruitment, GLG often emphasizes the volume and quality of potential consulting opportunities. However, many experts report a significant gap between these promises and reality.

Common Expectation Gaps:

1. Consultation frequency: Many experts are led to believe they'll receive regular consultation requests, only to experience long periods of inactivity.

2. Relevance of opportunities: Experts frequently receive poorly matched consultation requests outside their core expertise.

3. Time investment: The administrative burden of managing their GLG profile and responding to irrelevant opportunities creates unexpected time costs.

4. Career benefits: While networking is positioned as a benefit, the one-sided nature of consultations (where experts rarely build meaningful client relationships) limits professional growth.

A former management consultant who participated in GLG's network shared: "After three months and just two consultations, I realized I was spending more time managing my profile and screening irrelevant requests than actually providing valuable insights."

The Missing Network Effect

Perhaps the most fundamental issue with GLG's model is that experts gain no lasting network benefit from their participation. Because GLG owns the relationships and acts as a gatekeeper:

• Experts cannot directly build connections with clients
• No opportunity exists to develop ongoing relationships
• Experts don't build their own professional networks through participation
• All future opportunities must continue flowing through GLG

This creates a dynamic where experts essentially rent their knowledge to GLG, which then rents it to clients—with no lasting value creation for the experts themselves.

The Expert Burnout Cycle

The combination of these factors creates a predictable burnout cycle:

1. Initial enthusiasm: Experts join excited about sharing their knowledge and earning supplemental income
2. Onboarding frustration: The lengthy, compliance-heavy process creates the first friction point
3. Expectation mismatch: Reality fails to match the recruitment promises
4. Value questioning: Experts learn about the markup and begin questioning the arrangement
5. Disengagement: Reduced responsiveness to consultation requests
6. Departure: Experts either formally leave or simply stop engaging

This cycle not only affects expert satisfaction but ultimately impacts the quality of insights clients receive, as the most in-demand experts tend to burn out fastest.

The New Paradigm: Ownership vs. Rental

The fundamental issue with GLG's model reflects a broader shift in the research industry: the contrast between renting access and building owned networks.

Traditional firms like GLG operate on an access rental model—they own the supply (experts) and rent access to clients. This creates inherent value misalignment, as both experts and clients pay a premium for the intermediary.

In contrast, newer approaches focus on helping organizations build their own research networks. Platforms that allow companies to leverage their existing LinkedIn networks for expert outreach, for example, create a fundamentally different dynamic:

• Companies own the connections they make
• Experts receive fair compensation without markup
• Both sides can build lasting relationships
• The technology enables the connection without owning it

What Experts Actually Want

Based on interviews with former GLG experts, here's what would create a more sustainable expert engagement model:

1. Transparent compensation: Clear understanding of what clients pay versus what experts receive

2. Direct relationships: Ability to build ongoing connections with relevant clients

3. Simplified onboarding: Streamlined processes that respect experts' time

4. Relevant matching: Only receiving opportunities truly aligned with specific expertise

5. Ownership of connections: Creating lasting network value beyond individual consultations

Michael Torres, who participated in both traditional expert networks and newer direct outreach platforms, explains: "The difference is ownership. With GLG, I was essentially renting my knowledge to them. With direct outreach, I'm building my own network that continues providing value."

The Future of Expert Engagement

As research budgets tighten and companies seek faster, more efficient insights, the traditional expert network model faces mounting challenges. Experts themselves are increasingly questioning arrangements that provide limited transparency and ownership.

The future likely belongs to models that:

• Help companies build their own expert networks rather than renting access
• Provide technology that enables direct connections without owning them
• Allow both sides to capture more value by reducing intermediary costs
• Create lasting relationships rather than transactional exchanges

Conclusion: From Rental to Ownership

GLG's inefficient onboarding process and subsequent expert burnout highlight a fundamental issue in the traditional expert network model. By treating expertise as a commodity to be brokered rather than a relationship to be fostered, these networks create inherent misalignments that ultimately frustrate both experts and clients.

As the industry evolves, both sides increasingly recognize that owning your research network—rather than renting access through intermediaries—creates more sustainable value. Companies that adopt this approach not only reduce costs but build lasting assets in the form of expert relationships that continue providing insights over time.

For experts themselves, the choice is increasingly clear: participate in models where they retain ownership and build direct relationships, or continue renting their knowledge to brokers who capture most of the value. As this shift accelerates, expect to see continued evolution in how companies and experts connect for knowledge sharing.