Isn’t it just much simpler to accept that they indeed provide value in making good judgements? Instead of this more contrived explanation.
Many McKinsey go on to be executives in companies which means they had - at some point - the skills or judgement required to drive companies.
You have people making coming from the outside, making decisions that would affect rank and file in a company. I think its natural for the rank and file to be biased towards believing in their own skills and dismissing outsiders.
Why would shareholders, the board and the CEO waste so much money on paying consultancies when the only value is being able to pass blame? Isn't it simply easier to believe that consultancies indeed provide valuable judgements and the price paid is worth it?
The risk of doing one thing and complaints hampering the progress there is often too high which is why you give authority to a third party who will just do it regardless of feedback. One time breaks are necessary sometimes but can also be misused a lot for things employees want to do anyway. It's up to leadership to identify what is necessary and not generally possible with the current crew.
I'm the unreasonable one?
You’re debating against things people have directly experienced for themselves. You asked:
> Isn’t it just much simpler to accept that they indeed provide value in making good judgements?
It is not simpler to accept that when you have seen with your own two eyes multiple cases where they definitely were not making good judgements.
Management does it in large part to provide external validation (most importantly to the board and shareholders) of the decisions they sought to take anyway.
The board and shareholders accept it because the external validation works exactly the way management intends it to. (There's also cases where using independent consultants as part of some process is a compliance checkbox thing, and in those cases they are used for that specific reason.)
Naked Capitalism had a good take on the impact of AI on McKinsey:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/08/wall-street-journal-...
That’s the most egregious part imho, how when consultants get fired, the firm gives all the help it can so they can land a good job in a decision-making role at a potential client.
Have you heard of any company working as hard as mcKinsey, bcg, etc to help people they just fired?
There are plenty of reasons why an individual's goals aren't aligned with the org they're in. The larger the org, the more reasons there are.
For instance, you could be looking for loyal allies, rather than competent competitors. Or you could be looking for someone that will just repeat what you say as an exterior pov, rather than do "the best work" and potentially contradict you in front of your superiors. Or you could be looking for someone to take the fall for a botched project of yours. Or you could be looking to hire a relative or a friend of your boss in order to curry their favour. There are plenty more.
As for the relation between making the company healthy and profitable and having a successful carreer ; except for founders and a few early employees, it's usually more profitable to look for individual advancement within the company (promotions, raises, etc) rather than to expect the company's growth to benefit you.
Of course, employees are supposed to have some deontology, but you can't expect that all employees in a company fit that ideal.
That's not the case for people at the top with extremely high salaries tied to stock. Which explains why their salaries are high.
In general you are not refuting my main point and you are bringing edge cases which I agree can exist. But in general the incentives are aligned to hire a CEO best fit for the job and not some one you know.
I don't care about refuting a theoretical point.
Dissemination of big three alumni into companies, and their use of the services of their former colleagues is a thing I have witnessed, both from the client side, and from the experience from friends at these firms when they left.
It's simply the way these firms work: associates cultivate long-term business/support relations with executives, and they progress in the firm as these relations become more fruitful. It's honestly unsurprising that departing employees are seen as potential clients, and therefore that the firm helps them land as well as they can.
Many, nay most, executives at companies couldn't run a lemonade stand. In the real world having the job title doesn't mean they have any skills or judgement let alone those required to drive companies.
Jeff Bezos would be scrubbing toilets for a living if Walmart, Target or any of the big retailers had managment with 3 braincells between them in the 90's.
Let's put it this way: consultants provide a new envelope every 6 months or so.
I have hard time to accept that one, because there is little evidence of them providing good value judgements. They come in and leave companies in disordered state. I have not seen or heard of them come and fix stuff.
And from what I have seen, they do not have processes or knowledge to not create mess. Their actual changes are made by people who have very little experience and whose experience is limited to being parachuted somewhere and leaving in few months. Otherwise said, they do not even know impact of what they do.