Hacker News Reader

Comment by notepad0x90 | Hacker News Reader

wouldn't that be against their own business interest? If an executive or the board of some company want PwC's services, knowing that they'll only help confirm a biased opinion, then is it worth spending millions on them?

Their main income is a direct result of their capability to advise in the best interests of their clients. If action taken upon their advise, and that action leads to a loss of profit, then their clients paid them to lose money. There aren't enough companies that pay consultants money just for the sake of their ego to sustain a company the size of PwC.

View on HN

> wouldn't that be against their own business interest? If an executive or the board of some company want PwC's services, knowing that they'll only help confirm a biased opinion, then is it worth spending millions on them?

Generally speaking the point is you hire the consultants to get to where you want. You want RTO? Then you hire them and they will tell you how to get there/how to justify it to everyone/how to roll it out.

This is in some sense cynical, but in some sense also just logical. You want something to happen, then you pay somebody to do it! The idea that you would hire some external vendors to... decide for you... might make sense in theory but if you're the one defining the strategy surely you will have made some decision.

These are business people, not sociologists. Though you talk to many sociologists and they'll tell you they're often hired in to justify an existing decision as well...

With fuzzy stuff like this you can make an argument in any direction anyways. It's all pretty self-fulfilling.

> Generally speaking the point is you hire the consultants to get to where you want.

So in this case all those companies are paying PwC to conclude that hybrid > in office > full remote?

I'm sure if you get into the details, the answer will be "It depends...", which is obviously true, but also self serving for a consultant.

To figure out which is true for your company, they would come in, spend a few months studying you workplace. This would include several interviews with leaders and SMEs that the leaders hand select.

Given this study process, it wont be surprising that the consultants end echoing back the opinions of leadership.

I been through many consultant assisted re-orgs. Somehow, the leaders who brought them in always end up with promotions and more control. On one hand, yes, this usually gets oversold to the rank and file with promises of efficiency. On the other hand, the consultants are doing what they are paid for: finding a way to get their stakeholders what they want, when the stakeholders dont have a roadmap to get it.

Basically, they will take your idea and make it a plan, without regard to the organization.

You’re paying for validation and cutting through your own management and organization problems.

Yeah, validation, but not rubber-stamping. The validation may or may not succeed.

You're not wrong, but their value is that they do this for other companies as well and they have staff that have experience and competence in the subject matter. So, in their attempt to support the executive, they find out that they're heading in the wrong direction, they must advice them accordingly and help them come up with a strategy back-pedal.

In other words, if they have new information, they will share that information to see if their clients will have a change of mind. If the new information (or lack of one) won't change minds, then they will submit their advise in support of what they were hired to do to begin with.

These consulting firms, on their own, have had an enormous impact in shaping entire economies and countries. They are not mere props, supporting the ego of an executive. A lot of times, it is the entire board that hires them, or their report by the CEO is presented to the board, not one person. if the outcome is undesirable, they will lose credibility the next time they're used at that company.

I appreciate this theory, but even from the top 4 management consultant firms I've found that many consultants I've met have fairly surface level understanding of things.

My super cynical take is that the people who end up in management consulting are people who really liked making powerpoint slides in school. Just a continuation of what they did all through high school and university. Homework, as a job. I only half believe this

The vast majority of consulting engagements work like this. Someone wants something to happen and brings in a consultant to explain why it’s a good idea to cover themselves and sell to the rest of the business.

A consultancy wouldn’t last very long if they disagree on strategy with the person signing the cheques.

But if the strategy fails, won't they lose credibility? How is it sustainable, if all they do is rubber-stamp?

Check Ernst & young for wirecard or PwC for Evergrande for the latest examples, both banned temporarily or fined for their involvement.

Thanks, law aside, it is so hard for me to imagine why they continue to be in business. Maybe, it is because whoever is being convinced by them of something believes they would need to pull the same "trick" some day.

Another one is McKinsey for their role in the opioid crisis.

They’re paid to support the CEOs hunch, so it’s credible to take action on the hunch

That’s ignoring the blame-shifting or blame-sharing cover that hiring an outside expert advisor brings.

“We used the advice from top experts.”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com