Have McKinsey and its consulting rivals got too big?
Large management consultancies like McKinsey, BCG, Accenture and the Big Four are portrayed as powerful, data-rich institutions that sell templated solutions, political cover for executives, and large-scale transformation projects, often at very high margins. Commenters question whether these firms have become too big, morally compromised, and intertwined with corporate and public-sector decision-making, citing roles in crises like the opioid epidemic and failed infrastructure projects, as well as the thin “firewall” between consulting and auditing. Others note that despite real value in standardization, external validation, and specialized expertise, rising costs, economic uncertainty, AI-driven alternatives, and shifting labor dynamics may be eroding their justification and long-term dominance.
Role and value of large consultancies
- Seen as providers of proven, standardized playbooks in a few key verticals; their value is industrial-scale data, benchmarking, and repeatable processes.
- Supporters argue this “template” approach works for most non‑exceptional clients and often saves far more money than it costs.
- Critics say they mostly repackage what staff already know, formalize it in decks, and bill heavily for it.
Standardization, templates, and “watch-reading”
- Many describe engagements as collecting siloed internal information, synthesizing it into a dossier, and handing it back.
- Some defend this as real value: neutral synthesis, best-practice structure, and political cover to implement obvious but contentious decisions.
- Others see it as shallow, especially in technical domains where advice can be naive or buzzword-driven.
Critiques: ethics, incentives, and accountability
- Strong focus on involvement in harmful industries (opioids, tobacco, etc.) and lack of meaningful accountability.
- Fines are viewed as small relative to profits and treated as a cost of doing business; calls for personal liability and better enforcement.
- Consulting is framed by some as a tool to enable collusion and to prioritize shareholder value over broader social outcomes.
Consulting, auditing, and market structure
- Clarification that McKinsey is not in auditing; Big 4 are.
- Firewalls between audit and consulting are widely regarded as fictional.
- Some argue oligopoly and tight ties to regulators block fresh competitors and ideas.
Impact on clients and organizational dynamics
- Consultants often function as “liability shields” and stamp of legitimacy for layoffs, reorganizations, and controversial moves.
- They are used to bypass internal politics and dysfunctional cultures rather than fix them.
- Several note that failed past engagements are quickly forgotten, so firms return repeatedly.
Economics and work model
- Strategy-only work is now a minority; bulk revenue comes from long, large-scale implementation projects with armies of juniors.
- Business model is labor arbitrage and rate multiples (reported from ~3x to 6x).
- Boutique and specialist firms claim to thrive in uncertainty by delivering concrete expertise, but pure-strategy boutiques are said to be hard businesses.
AI and technology consulting
- Big firms are aggressively selling “gen AI” projects; some insiders suspect revenue numbers are inflated via generous labeling.
- Quality of delivered AI work is mixed; some clients accept mediocre output if it “works enough.”