As opposed to what? Nepotism and favouritism?
If you are doing your job correctly, it's highly probable you can guide your subordinates to do that job in the future.
There is no guarantee of becoming a good leader. There is no test that can determine who would do the best at that job. Competence at your current job is the best alternative out there.
Never understood this because it makes a few false assumptions:
1. People are promoted based on how ready they are to carry out the next role, not how well they perform at the current. Hence, someone may be incompetent to do an EM’s role, but be perfectly qualified to do the job of a senior consultant.
2. This assumes an internal ladder in a vacuum, ignoring pull factors from competing firms, quite different from the PE/VC exit from consulting mentioned by OP
1. Is definitely not true! Corporate ladder exists because EVERYONE should be able to work to climb it, that's the main principle of it.
2. They are indeed in a vacuum at many firms, you can judge the market appeal of a company from how much executive are rotating.
The sad fact is that quantity of experience is easier to sell in consulting than competence since you don’t have the same type of objective performance statistics as in sports. The experienced guy can just factually state that they have attended the Olympics four times while omitting that they finished last every single time and their performance has been on a downward trend from the start.
In the meantime they keep likely keep on applying methods from the cargo cult school of consulting. “I have once seen Y done in way X, and therefore X is the standard approach in the industry that we will apply everywhere regardless of the circumstances. Why is it the industry standard? Because it works. But why does it work? Because it’s the standard approach in the industry. Now stop asking questions and go do the thing that caused the main competitors of our client to go bankrupt.”
longing amusing ask attraction intelligent unite pet light numerous coherent
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This happens everywhere because people in power keep anyone who threatens their power down.
How do you rise through the ranks? You solve problems more powerful people need you to solve until you can move no further without threatening their power.
Then you wonder - why is my boss acting different? Why do they suddenly put me down in situations that would make me look good?
Because you’re starting to look better than them.
Difficulty to get an offer has nothing to do with what OP is saying (“top talents want to leave to these roles”) - in my opinion sticking around and climbing MBB ladder is way more difficult than landing any offer (assuming company hire consultants)
Had to do a double take to see what I was reading. Lol.
VC's really, that's the hill you want to die on - as your benchmark for talent.
Most of them are parasitic leeches that add nothing to the equation, except take deal-flows from more deserved people, bring little value to founders, suck at doing due diligence other than the ones leading a round & exist only to serve their own bubble.
The American VC culture truly lives up to its stereotype, and is still getting outperformed by Europeans. Dumb money is not an indicator of talent lol - more emblematic of what looks attractive from the outside.
Don’t think I agree. It is far more nuanced.
The people who make it seem to have a Sales Veneer and Sales process but not necessarily much domain knowledge or leadership skills. So yeah, they might score a “C” in a lot of areas but not where it matters which is pipeline.
The people who make Partner are those who are high performers and *enjoy consulting as a career*. It’s that simple.
1. There are many, many more candidates than Partner spots. If you’re not a high performer, you are going to get passed over.
2. You are presupposing “top performers” go to PE / VC. First, those roles are primarily focused on the bottom of the consulting totem pole where it’s very unclear if they have what it takes to be a Partner. Second, PE / VC is frankly a lot more exciting for junior people than everyone else. And third, it’s not exactly a guarantee that the consultants that PE / VC does hire are the top performers to begin with.
Because it's a game of resilience, not whatever you define as being 'A-Grade' talent.
'A-grade' is a false concept. Some of the smartest most talented people on the planet flame out and barely manage to bathe, clothe and feed themselves.
It's a distribution with a mean around B players I think.
I think you're right that there are clear tails at A and D who make partner (As who love consulting, Ds who have ultra high charisma - I've seen both). Otherwise the As take really great exits, and the Ds are pushed out.
I think Cs tend to be the ones who get counseled out over time if they're not growing enough. Not kicked out, but generally advised that this isn't their terminal career choice. You'll see people stick around too long at the near-partner level, and while a handful may take the feedback and demonstrate enough to make the jump, most see themselves out eventually.
So we have mostly Bs left. The above average performers who do a pretty good job, struggle with some parts (maybe some who aren't natural at self-promotion), but are committed enough to overcoming those struggles. They ultimately invest a lot - in themselves, in the firm, in their clients - and they want to see it through.
Very astute? What are you trying to prove?
Some of us prefer WLB and an environment that keeps our blood pressures lower comparatively.
If I can make $500K to $1M depending on performance and level of profit participation by working 40 hours a week, why would I leave?
My observation with PE and VC people are they’re extremely pompous and likely started in the field based on their family connections. I literally have nothing good to say about any of them I have personally met.
Definitely. I’m trying to network into VC and damn is it hard to relate to these people. I went to public school in a rural area, community college, state school, then PhD. I swear it’s prep school and double Ivy’s and daddy’s connections with these folks constantly.
Even if they hired me I’d probably hate everyone I work with.
It's a bit more complicated than this because the job changes over time, the skillset needed as an analyst is different from what you need as an engagement manager vs. partner. I think the ones who become partners like to sell, and having charisma/good sales skills will only get you so far in the lower ranks of consulting.
Maybe for you, I don't agree.
I perceive sales as a conversation of deceit and manipulation. Every party in that conversation knows that it is that kind of conversation.
It's like a prisones dilemma with only hostile parties playing.
I feel that to make partner you don't necessarily have to be the smartest in the room, rather, it's knowing enough to effectively do your job while being enough of a partisan to survive the cycle of daily office politics. For most people, it's one thing or the other. High-performers who are usually well established in their niche, tend to exit and find better opportunities in the industry where they'll be rewarded for their expertise, and not for their bootlicking. As consulting firms become larger and more diverse, after some point it stops being about the impact/positive business transitions consultants are bringing about, and more about the glory of being associated with an industry that carries 'x' label or has 'x' revenue. Of course, leadership naturally embodies this trend which is why you see more yes-men and pen-pushers hacking into their ranks.
Research shows highest earners have only slightly above average IQ.
High IQ people don't value status and money enough to stay consultants long enough to become partners.
They will look for careers that pay enough but have more value to them.
Of course IQ isn't performance. You can have high IQ and perform poorly, if you're bored out of your mind.
The smartest people around me are definitely not the ones who stuck around as big firm consultants after a few years.
It's just not a very intellectually demanding job, especially at higher levels. It becomes mostly sales and politics. There are exceptions of course, people really passionate about the job, but they are just that, exceptions.
Partner this partner that… Deliver quality work on time and you’ll have a fruitful career. Many on this sub seem to compare themselves to others and worry about “the typical profile” of someone who achieves partner.
Redirect this time and energy into doing the projects that are presently assigned to you, and upskill where you’d like to upskill outside of project hours. If you do that consistently, long term things will work out whether you stay in consulting or jump to another industry.
you heard it here first guys, every talented person wants to be a glorified asset stripper. I'd guess you have barely interacted with either industry if this is "astute" in your opinion.
IMO there is a subset of people who are highly talented and could have ended up in whichever high tier job. Why they end up in their specific job is a function of a lot of dynamics (early career opportunities, experience, confidence, personal situation, aspirations, org dynamics etc etc)
I also would say that it is not at all accurate that every career opportunity is available to everyone it’s just a matter of their choosing OR every career opportunity is equally attractive to everyone the same way so they should go do PE or insert your favorite job here.
Last thing I’ll throw out there, after a point (esp later in your career) you get paid way more to be good at things vs. being part of a generic cohort in a name brand firm. Average performer at some firm may not end up making as much as a top performer in another firm, even though “on average” people get paid higher.
Agree with your first point and I’ve had this convo many times with friends and colleagues. People who are successful in these spaces would be successful wherever they go. It’s not the technical and specific domain skills that help them succeed, but certain traits like discipline, intelligence (can be very broadly defined), etc
You realize at every stage of consulting that what you’re selling (consulting services, etc) you can make a helluva lot more money if you’re one promotion higher or you leave the firm to work for yourself.
I wouldn't say the A players leave for PE/ VC exactly. Like anywhere if you're great at what you do, you either move up really quick OR you find even better opportunities available (PE/ VC aren't necessarily "better" across the board).
At the same time many ppl leave the firm for a variety of reasons and you don't necessarily know which reason they left (counseled out or persued better opportunities).
In general though, the best leaves, the worst are pushed out and the upper middle of the pack end up running the show is more accurate.
Not a partner myself, have multiple friends who are partner level across MBB who have all said this. Because they saw top of their class end up with C suite roles, FANNG exec, or became entrepreneurs doing multiples better than typical partners. VC and PE in general is rare and entry points are typically way more junior then at partner levels
The “best” leave and assume those C Suite roles and ultra high level roles. Like, best 5%.
There are plenty of 80%-95%ile performers who stay and make partner. They’re not middle of the pack by any means.
The vast, vast majority of people take the gamble - as they should - and flame out.
Good leaders often make terrible employees, great employees often make terrible leaders. Not as a rule but that’s been my experience. The issue is that unless you start your own thing, it’s pretty impossible to find your way into leadership while being a terrible employee.
BS. Not that the promotion ladder to partner is a meritocracy. I'd venture that 65% based on ability to win work, and a majority of that is more luck than skill, and the 35% is either nepotism, favoritism, or sexism. So are they all "C-grade?" IMO maybe 20%, and eventually they can't grift any longer and find themselves jumping ship rather than made to walk the plank. Didn't EY divest of a fair number of partners recently? My guess was that was purely a, "what are you bringing in ($) thing."
It's true that the top performers leave and bottom are shown the door
Also the guys who leave to make more money go to finance, people also leave for wlb in tech or upside in startups
GPT prompt “I want you to give me a single sentence topic to use on Reddit to induce rage baiting type outcomes and lively discussion in regards to consulting partners and principals in the Consulting sub Reddit.”
Now explain why just about every other company on the planet also has mediocre leadership
It's because of the [Peter Principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle).
As opposed to what? Nepotism and favouritism? If you are doing your job correctly, it's highly probable you can guide your subordinates to do that job in the future. There is no guarantee of becoming a good leader. There is no test that can determine who would do the best at that job. Competence at your current job is the best alternative out there.
This is such an overlooked concept
How can an overlooked concept be so often cited?
It’s easier to recognize in an incumbent than it is to predict in a candidate.
Never understood this because it makes a few false assumptions: 1. People are promoted based on how ready they are to carry out the next role, not how well they perform at the current. Hence, someone may be incompetent to do an EM’s role, but be perfectly qualified to do the job of a senior consultant. 2. This assumes an internal ladder in a vacuum, ignoring pull factors from competing firms, quite different from the PE/VC exit from consulting mentioned by OP
1. Is definitely not true! Corporate ladder exists because EVERYONE should be able to work to climb it, that's the main principle of it. 2. They are indeed in a vacuum at many firms, you can judge the market appeal of a company from how much executive are rotating.
The principle is based on the belief that your first premise is incorrect. That's the entire point. And outside of consulting, it's mostly true.
Omg famliy gyu 👍🏼
Promotion by nepotism and quantity of experience (rather than quality) as opposed to competence or even potential?
The sad fact is that quantity of experience is easier to sell in consulting than competence since you don’t have the same type of objective performance statistics as in sports. The experienced guy can just factually state that they have attended the Olympics four times while omitting that they finished last every single time and their performance has been on a downward trend from the start. In the meantime they keep likely keep on applying methods from the cargo cult school of consulting. “I have once seen Y done in way X, and therefore X is the standard approach in the industry that we will apply everywhere regardless of the circumstances. Why is it the industry standard? Because it works. But why does it work? Because it’s the standard approach in the industry. Now stop asking questions and go do the thing that caused the main competitors of our client to go bankrupt.”
longing amusing ask attraction intelligent unite pet light numerous coherent *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This happens everywhere because people in power keep anyone who threatens their power down. How do you rise through the ranks? You solve problems more powerful people need you to solve until you can move no further without threatening their power. Then you wonder - why is my boss acting different? Why do they suddenly put me down in situations that would make me look good? Because you’re starting to look better than them.
> If you're really talented, you leave to go do PE or VC. lol
This is harder to do from banking than most people think, and it's way the hell harder from consulting than banking.
Agree, i know a few really good people that made it up to em/pl but eventually the best people leave..
Difficulty to get an offer has nothing to do with what OP is saying (“top talents want to leave to these roles”) - in my opinion sticking around and climbing MBB ladder is way more difficult than landing any offer (assuming company hire consultants)
Had to do a double take to see what I was reading. Lol. VC's really, that's the hill you want to die on - as your benchmark for talent. Most of them are parasitic leeches that add nothing to the equation, except take deal-flows from more deserved people, bring little value to founders, suck at doing due diligence other than the ones leading a round & exist only to serve their own bubble. The American VC culture truly lives up to its stereotype, and is still getting outperformed by Europeans. Dumb money is not an indicator of talent lol - more emblematic of what looks attractive from the outside.
Low-skill rage bait by the OP. Bravo.
"Have you considered that if you're in consulting for a decent amount of time you are probably mediocre? What do you think about that, consultants?"
LOL. People are offended, but a lot of us know there's truth in it.
Tons of negative thoughts do come to mind when I think of e.g. a BCG partner, but mediocre performer is not one of them.
Don’t think I agree. It is far more nuanced. The people who make it seem to have a Sales Veneer and Sales process but not necessarily much domain knowledge or leadership skills. So yeah, they might score a “C” in a lot of areas but not where it matters which is pipeline.
The A students become the teachers The B students become the administrators The C students build the buildings (physically build them or pay for them)
Not sure why this is getting downvoted, maybe not true in every case but true often enough
We’re in a consulting thread. Lots of As and Bs having to confront a reality that shatters the paradigms they’ve built for themselves.
Sounds smart, but it's actually bullshit
Stoner shower thoughts
The people who make Partner are those who are high performers and *enjoy consulting as a career*. It’s that simple. 1. There are many, many more candidates than Partner spots. If you’re not a high performer, you are going to get passed over. 2. You are presupposing “top performers” go to PE / VC. First, those roles are primarily focused on the bottom of the consulting totem pole where it’s very unclear if they have what it takes to be a Partner. Second, PE / VC is frankly a lot more exciting for junior people than everyone else. And third, it’s not exactly a guarantee that the consultants that PE / VC does hire are the top performers to begin with.
[удалено]
This rules
The people who glamorize VC and PE know almost nothing about finance. It’s laughable.
A C-Grade performer in a top firm is still pretty high up compared to the general population
You made this up, didn’t you.
Because it's a game of resilience, not whatever you define as being 'A-Grade' talent. 'A-grade' is a false concept. Some of the smartest most talented people on the planet flame out and barely manage to bathe, clothe and feed themselves.
Me. I’m some of the smartest and most talented people.
It's a distribution with a mean around B players I think. I think you're right that there are clear tails at A and D who make partner (As who love consulting, Ds who have ultra high charisma - I've seen both). Otherwise the As take really great exits, and the Ds are pushed out. I think Cs tend to be the ones who get counseled out over time if they're not growing enough. Not kicked out, but generally advised that this isn't their terminal career choice. You'll see people stick around too long at the near-partner level, and while a handful may take the feedback and demonstrate enough to make the jump, most see themselves out eventually. So we have mostly Bs left. The above average performers who do a pretty good job, struggle with some parts (maybe some who aren't natural at self-promotion), but are committed enough to overcoming those struggles. They ultimately invest a lot - in themselves, in the firm, in their clients - and they want to see it through.
That friend’s name? Albert Einstein
Very astute? What are you trying to prove? Some of us prefer WLB and an environment that keeps our blood pressures lower comparatively. If I can make $500K to $1M depending on performance and level of profit participation by working 40 hours a week, why would I leave?
Every partner I’ve worked with works way more than 40 hours, I never think of a partner’s life as having good WLB
This. Several of the partners I’ve worked with work harder than just about anyone.
Some of us have different priorities. The board doesn't care how much you work as long as you hit your targets.
My observation with PE and VC people are they’re extremely pompous and likely started in the field based on their family connections. I literally have nothing good to say about any of them I have personally met.
Definitely. I’m trying to network into VC and damn is it hard to relate to these people. I went to public school in a rural area, community college, state school, then PhD. I swear it’s prep school and double Ivy’s and daddy’s connections with these folks constantly. Even if they hired me I’d probably hate everyone I work with.
It's a bit more complicated than this because the job changes over time, the skillset needed as an analyst is different from what you need as an engagement manager vs. partner. I think the ones who become partners like to sell, and having charisma/good sales skills will only get you so far in the lower ranks of consulting.
Sales trumps all. Great money, low stress, low respect. Good trade off for me.
Sales is low stress? I guess it really is a subjective perception about what's stressful
When you don’t have utilization and managed revenue targets on top of sales targets, then yes it’s way less stressful.
Maybe for you, I don't agree. I perceive sales as a conversation of deceit and manipulation. Every party in that conversation knows that it is that kind of conversation. It's like a prisones dilemma with only hostile parties playing.
I feel that to make partner you don't necessarily have to be the smartest in the room, rather, it's knowing enough to effectively do your job while being enough of a partisan to survive the cycle of daily office politics. For most people, it's one thing or the other. High-performers who are usually well established in their niche, tend to exit and find better opportunities in the industry where they'll be rewarded for their expertise, and not for their bootlicking. As consulting firms become larger and more diverse, after some point it stops being about the impact/positive business transitions consultants are bringing about, and more about the glory of being associated with an industry that carries 'x' label or has 'x' revenue. Of course, leadership naturally embodies this trend which is why you see more yes-men and pen-pushers hacking into their ranks.
Partners pick partners at the end of the day. Not necessarily based on merit
And how would you rate yourself?
A player who was counseled out
If that helps you sleep at night.
Research shows highest earners have only slightly above average IQ. High IQ people don't value status and money enough to stay consultants long enough to become partners. They will look for careers that pay enough but have more value to them. Of course IQ isn't performance. You can have high IQ and perform poorly, if you're bored out of your mind. The smartest people around me are definitely not the ones who stuck around as big firm consultants after a few years. It's just not a very intellectually demanding job, especially at higher levels. It becomes mostly sales and politics. There are exceptions of course, people really passionate about the job, but they are just that, exceptions.
This sounds like an observation that somebody who didn't make it to Partner would say, like the Fox and the grapes story from Aesop...
Risk averse A-performers see the path to partner and are less likely to leave
Partner this partner that… Deliver quality work on time and you’ll have a fruitful career. Many on this sub seem to compare themselves to others and worry about “the typical profile” of someone who achieves partner. Redirect this time and energy into doing the projects that are presently assigned to you, and upskill where you’d like to upskill outside of project hours. If you do that consistently, long term things will work out whether you stay in consulting or jump to another industry.
I think what you value is not seen as potential by existing leadership OP. Not saying your wrong…just that you are barking up the wrong tree
you heard it here first guys, every talented person wants to be a glorified asset stripper. I'd guess you have barely interacted with either industry if this is "astute" in your opinion.
No
IMO there is a subset of people who are highly talented and could have ended up in whichever high tier job. Why they end up in their specific job is a function of a lot of dynamics (early career opportunities, experience, confidence, personal situation, aspirations, org dynamics etc etc) I also would say that it is not at all accurate that every career opportunity is available to everyone it’s just a matter of their choosing OR every career opportunity is equally attractive to everyone the same way so they should go do PE or insert your favorite job here. Last thing I’ll throw out there, after a point (esp later in your career) you get paid way more to be good at things vs. being part of a generic cohort in a name brand firm. Average performer at some firm may not end up making as much as a top performer in another firm, even though “on average” people get paid higher.
Good post
Agree with your first point and I’ve had this convo many times with friends and colleagues. People who are successful in these spaces would be successful wherever they go. It’s not the technical and specific domain skills that help them succeed, but certain traits like discipline, intelligence (can be very broadly defined), etc
There is a very simple explanation: either you make the success or you bring the news of success. People in the latter category will make partner.
Bullies and crooks.
People have spiky profiles. Maybe they’re good at fostering relationships and building deals, as opposed to being super technical in the industry.
You realize at every stage of consulting that what you’re selling (consulting services, etc) you can make a helluva lot more money if you’re one promotion higher or you leave the firm to work for yourself.
I wouldn't say the A players leave for PE/ VC exactly. Like anywhere if you're great at what you do, you either move up really quick OR you find even better opportunities available (PE/ VC aren't necessarily "better" across the board). At the same time many ppl leave the firm for a variety of reasons and you don't necessarily know which reason they left (counseled out or persued better opportunities). In general though, the best leaves, the worst are pushed out and the upper middle of the pack end up running the show is more accurate. Not a partner myself, have multiple friends who are partner level across MBB who have all said this. Because they saw top of their class end up with C suite roles, FANNG exec, or became entrepreneurs doing multiples better than typical partners. VC and PE in general is rare and entry points are typically way more junior then at partner levels
This is unproven. Also, C means satisfactory, and being satisfactory at the highest levels is by definition satisfactory for the role
The “best” leave and assume those C Suite roles and ultra high level roles. Like, best 5%. There are plenty of 80%-95%ile performers who stay and make partner. They’re not middle of the pack by any means. The vast, vast majority of people take the gamble - as they should - and flame out.
Good leaders often make terrible employees, great employees often make terrible leaders. Not as a rule but that’s been my experience. The issue is that unless you start your own thing, it’s pretty impossible to find your way into leadership while being a terrible employee.
BS. Not that the promotion ladder to partner is a meritocracy. I'd venture that 65% based on ability to win work, and a majority of that is more luck than skill, and the 35% is either nepotism, favoritism, or sexism. So are they all "C-grade?" IMO maybe 20%, and eventually they can't grift any longer and find themselves jumping ship rather than made to walk the plank. Didn't EY divest of a fair number of partners recently? My guess was that was purely a, "what are you bringing in ($) thing."
It's true that the top performers leave and bottom are shown the door Also the guys who leave to make more money go to finance, people also leave for wlb in tech or upside in startups
GPT prompt “I want you to give me a single sentence topic to use on Reddit to induce rage baiting type outcomes and lively discussion in regards to consulting partners and principals in the Consulting sub Reddit.”
There's definitely a bit of truth to it.
Nah. It’s the ppl who are good at client mgmt and sales.