[ghaff]

The one time I dealt with KcKinsey, the partner was pretty sharp, one of the associates was as well, and the other, well, more arrogant than justified.

Overall, in retrospect, the experience was... not terrible.

We answered a lot of questions, did a lot of education. They produced a bunch of spreadsheets that kept the business planning people occupied (a good thing). And they basically validated to the senior management that the product managers and related advising on strategy were on the right track. Expensive, yeah. But it's not always the worst thing to get an external sanity check.

[frognumber]

I would recommend a good psychic for this -- someone skilled at cold reading. You will receive even better validation and a similarly reliable "external sanity check."

If I were in Europe, I'd leave it at that. For the Americans, it's important to dot the i's and cross the t's, so: An art of the industry is telling people what they want to hear. That gets you hired again. Consultants are no good as an external sanity check.

They are great for taking the blame for decisions you had planned on making.

[sirspacey]

I know it can seem this way.

But the best consultants, and even leaders, know that sometimes the way you get everyone to listen to the people who actually know what a company should be doing is hire a consultant.

A consultants job is to find them, elevate their voice, and get out of the way.

Edit: added “sometimes” - the alternative is to build a low ego culture and listen to the people closest to the work.

[jrs235]

The reason hiring a consultant works, even when your employees are telling you what to do. It's because the consultant costs 10x more and is specifically being hired for direction... it's merely rationalizing "we're paying them $1000/hr for their opinion... that makes their opinion very valuable and we should listen to their advice. Johnny in the corner cubicle is paid to code, not for his opinions..."

[sfn42]

Here in Norway, a "consultant" is just someone who is employed by a different company but works for your company. We don't get people to listen to the right people.

We just work like everyone else while the company pays a premium for us and we're the first to be let go if things go downhill.

[frognumber]

In the US, that's a contractor. Many contractors are called "consultants," but it's mostly because "consultant" sounds better.

Consultants are (in abstract) paid much more for their expertise, and engagements are much more limited. A contractor might work 40 hour work weeks for one client for years.

My experience is that the take-home pay is almost identical for all three. To give an example, at one point in my career, I could:

* Charge $600-$900/hour as a consultant

* Charge $125-350/hour as a contractor

* Charge $150k-$200k as an employee

On paper, that works out to >$1M, 0.25-0.75M, and 0.15-0.2M, respectively, if I worked 40 hour work-weeks. In practice, at least for me, net pay was very similar for all three:

* Consulting had many hours overhead for one hour of work, and clients would often cancel on short notice.

* Contracting had an even split between selling myself and working. Work came in spurts (either too much, or not enough)

* Employment was steady

Free markets converged to very similar net take-home pay. Contracting and consulting had much more diversity of work (contracts, marketing, etc.), more flexibility on side projects (startups, etc.), and much more volatility. Volatility can be good or bad. A dry-spell can mean time to finally go on that vacation or focus on that startup. Or it can mean a lost mortgage. It depends on your life stage, savings, etc.

As a recent grad, contracting worked well for me. As a Dad, I preferred employment. Late stage (no kids at home, and mortgage paid off), consulting seems like the way to go.

[ghaff]

When I was an IT industry analyst (basically a type of consultant) for about 10 years, we got good rates when we were directly (or near-directly) on the clock--up to about $10K per day or so. But the rub was that were relatively rarely on-the-clock. Bigger firms can make it work better because they bill out juniors at higher rates than they really are worth. It also works if you only want sort of part-time interesting work anyway. But it's not generally a great steady income stream.

[sfn42]

As a contractor I'm paid regardless of my project status. I could earn more working with provision at a different agency but I like the security i have where I am now.

It's the kind of gig where I just work 40 hours a week for years. If something happens they just find me a new project. It's pretty chill.

[dan-robertson]

That’s what consultant means in many places, but the thing being talked about in this thread is a management or strategy consultant, of which there are a few big prestigious firms who do this, and which is a reasonably common career path for ambitious young people.

[primax]

Do you know any psychics good at excel?

[xh-dude]

Oracle

[sph]

They require basic computer proficiency and the ability to work long hours in the clairvoyancy business these days.

[another2another]

There must be a plugin, or a VBX somewhere..?

[ghaff]

Internal people with their own biases and investments are always right. Of course.

[Aeolun]

I think it’s more that two times wrong doesn’t make something right.

[Nevermark]

Ah, algebra. Perhaps, geometry?

The right thing to do is hire one or more people who have deep knowledge with the problems you are slogging in. Pay them what they are worth.

Otherwise, what's left is to higher outside consultants to solve your problem that is so pressing that you are hiring outside consultants to solve it. Fire them and hire new consultants if they don't perform.

And if you get very lucky, three lefts will make a right!

[a_bonobo]

>They are great for taking the blame for decisions you had planned on making.

One might say that's the point of consultants! They're there to externalise accountability, you're outsourcing taking the heat.

[classichasclass]

We had a McKinsey consultant team at a large governmental agency I was contracted to as an SME. Scope creep was a daily threat with them; they were always trying to get into another subline in the business and set up a new basecamp there as work faded elsewhere. The worker bees were earnest but had little or no domain-specific experience, and worked off obviously pre-fabricated steps that were carefully calibrated to emit "just enough" progress -- but not too quickly. I remember advising higher-ups we needed to get off that train, but the problem was the agency was far too shorthanded and relied on them for even basic operational tasks instead of higher-level conceptual ones, thus making them essential, and their management almost certainly knew it. I moved onto another opportunity and I have no doubt they're still there in some capacity.

[squirrel6]

Thanks for sharing your experience. Agree with this last paragraph 100% — I would also highlight that part of the value consultants provide is in helping senior management cut through politics to actually solve problems and encourage cross-functional cooperation.