[freetinker]

They might see their role as brilliant mediators facilitating action by settling feuds using 2x2 matrices, but I think that's naive at best, disingenuous at worst.

They care about the agenda of the person they've been hired by. Usually a C-level agenda-setter or someone influential in the org, and often a McK "alum".

And speaking of action, they have zero stake in the actual implementation of what they proselytize.

All this isn't to say that they don't provide value. Exchange of money is usually is a reasonable signal of providing value, and these firms and its employees do reliably well in that area. However, the narratives around what value strategy consultants provide I find to be truthy, but not actually true.

[josephg]

I can vouch for this. I've done software consulting in corporates a few times throughout my career. Probably the highest value things I've done have been those times the team's organisational structure was a bit broken, and nobody in the company had the visibility, audacity and cover to call it out.

One team had no clear leadership, and there was an important milestone coming up that the team didn't seem to be orienting around. I started kicking up a fuss in meetings by constantly asking "Is this important for our April launch?". I know I upset at least one person, but with some help from management we ended up collectively getting the launch back on track.

At another company my perspective was relayed through my consulting company to the client's upper management, and that ended up being used to fire someone. It doesn't feel good - he was a nice guy. But he was genuinely useless. He spent about 90% of his attention brown nosing to upper management. Once or twice he even actively sabotaged the team in small ways so he could be seen stepping in and fixing the problem. I think they wanted to get rid of him anyway but they didn't have legal cover.

There's absolutely value for companies in having outside consultants sit amongst a team. But its a subtle kind of value. I thought I was brought in to write code. Hah!

[not_enoch_wise]

"Exchange of money is usually is a reasonable signal of providing value"

How do I get some of the drugs you're on? Sounds like a truly magical journey.

[freetinker]

I should clarify “value” is subjective. Value in this context doesn’t necessarily mean good, of value to society, aligned with your values, etc. Just that one party is willing to part with cash in exchange for something of value to them (presumably of value to them – unless they’re on drugs).

[avianlyric]

They’re providing value, just not to the company at large. But the specific person that hired them, and pays them with company fund, you can bet your ass they’re getting value.

[emodendroket]

It's a noisy signal but not an outright bad one.

[jjoonathan]

Not just noisy, but also power/wealth weighted.

[bps4484]

I don't think they were saying they are mediators or settle feuds. I'm sure a bunch of people at the companies are pissed at the conclusions they come to. It's moreso though that precisely because they aren't tied to any feudal relationships within the organization they're able to be more impartial with their research and cut through bureaucracy.

Certainly though if all they're doing is parroting back conclusions backed by "research" that the exec who hired them wants to hear then they aren't providing much value, other than perhaps providing air cover when some decision, any decision, is better than no decision and gridlock.