Sébastien Stenger is one of the best connoisseurs of the French consulting community. This researcher at the Higher Institute of Management devoted his doctoral thesis to them, continued in the book At the heart of audit and consulting firmsawarded the prize The world of university research in 2017. This former classmate of Cédric O, Stanislas Guénini and Amélie de Montchalin at HEC was particularly interested in the logic of power at the heart of consulting firms, in the vision of the world of consultants, whom he describes as driven by “meritocratic extremism”. Logic that sometimes opposes the habits of the civil servants they come across on certain missions. In the microcosm of consultingthe trade unions hardly exist and the logic of rationalization of work surpasses all the others.
So much so that within the “Big Three”, the three most prestigious companies, namely Mc Kinsey, the Boston Consulting Group and Bain Consulting, as well as the “Big Four”, the four companies that follow them in the hierarchy, Deloitte, Ernst&Young, KPMG and PwC, it is not uncommon to refer to the rest of the private sector as the “normal business” world. Quite a symbol.
L’Express: Were you surprised by the controversy arising from the Senate report, which puts the government’s use of consulting firms at nearly one billion euros in 2021?
Sebastien Stenger: Not really. This debate is relatively new in France, but in Germany, for example, we have been talking about the “Republic of consultants” for several years. In other countries, McKinsey is presented as a CEO factory. This phenomenon of recourse to consulting firms goes hand in hand with the transformation of the French elites. For several years, the attributes of the legitimacy of power have changed: mastery of English, economic capital, participation in globalization are more valued. Consulting firms totally represent these new elites, they have become a space for circulation and discreet production of elites. More and more leaders of large companies come from McKinsey or BCG, as well as many leaders of start-ups. The election of Emmanuel Macron was also accompanied by the emergence of these profiles more from business schools among deputies, even ministers.
Who are the consultants of the big firms?
Business school graduates, and not just any. The “Big Three” recruit almost exclusively from the three Parisian business schools: HEC, Essec and ESCP. They also recruit engineers, but only from the three major schools. We will never be able to integrate McKinsey if we have not done Polytechnique, Centrale or Les Mines. There is hardly anyone from Sciences Po. Recruitment is a little more open, but barely, in the “Big Four”. In all, about 30% of business school students go on to consultancy.
What is the difference between the “Big Four” and the “Big Three”?
It is simply a difference of prestige. McKinsey, BCG and Bain have a reputation for being the best where the address book is the best. And we are better paid in the “Big Three”, 60,000 to 65,000 euros gross per year when hired, after school. After five years, these consultants earn 120,000 to 130,000 euros gross per year. In the “Big Four”, it’s more like 45,000 euros per year when hired and 65,000 euros after five years.
Should we see in this corporation people interested above all in money?
No, not only. Remuneration is part of the objective advantages to which consultants are attached, but they are also driven by accession to a selective elite. The model of these cabinets works in such a way that it reproduces school competition. It’s a pyramid system, with a very sophisticated grading system. We call this system “up or out”, either you go up or you go. Each semester, the consultants are graded during an evaluation committee which classifies the consultants according to their performance and decides on grade passages from one year to the next. This system of ascension eliminates 20% of the consultants every year, so that after five years, 80% of the heads have changed. Only a part reaches the top, to the ultimate grades. But these can then, after this meritocratic “in-house” course, claim management positions in large companies thanks to the network and codes they have acquired over the years.
It seems that very few consultants leave on bad terms with the company. How to explain it?
There are very few breaches of contract that go wrong. When the firm no longer wants you in the company, it will send you some signals, which all consultants understand. It is then generally offered to the departing consultant to “unstaff” him and pay him for six months, while providing him with a coach and the company’s address book so that he can bounce back. This program facilitates departures.
How much do the directors of these firms earn?
The variable part is significant. Excluding the variable part, a manager of a “Big Three” can earn 200,000 euros gross per year. If the year is good, if the turnover is satisfactory, this remuneration can be close to that of Cac 40 bosses. This can rise to more than one million euros in one year.
What are the consensus values in consulting?
Merit, work and managerial logic. Consultants are employees who define themselves as rather individualistic subjects and have a very meritocratic vision of work. We can almost speak of meritocratic extremism. They are ready to work a lot, to do night shifts until midnight, if there is a reward at the end. They consider that this merit must justify unequal rewards. They therefore adhere to economic liberalism and have a quasi-Darwinian approach to merit: only the strongest hold on and that’s normal. They also have a certain view of efficiency. For them, a well-managed organization is an organization that applies the principles of Taylorism, that is to say the division of labor with “processes”, so as to improve performance.
Rather, they share the ideology that this managerial logic can be applied to any service. This vision of the world can offend public service agents when these firms provide strategy consulting for administrations. They may feel a loss of meaning in their work, complain that the same criteria are applied to them as to an ordinary industrial production. However, issuing asylum permits, working in the police or in national education, is not the same as making yoghurts. In any case, this is what officials often say.
Are these limits of managerial logic understood by the consultants?
In their vision of the world, the public service must nevertheless become more efficient. These are people who overperform, they may not understand that the administrations in front of them do not apply the performance criteria that they apply to themselves. In their meritocratic or even Darwinian logic, they may judge their interlocutors not good enough, not competent enough. The paradox in relation to the current controversy is that when they advise the State, consultants can have the impression of acting for the common good.
What interest do consultants have in advising the State?
What is certain is that this is not the most lucrative sector of the “Big Three”. It’s a bit more important in the “Big Four”. Generally, strategy consulting services are subject to debate within companies. A significant number of consultants consider that they pose a reputational risk, that their company does not need more prestige, that it is better to remain discreet and therefore are against it. Those who are for it almost see it as a matter of general interest. I met consultants who really wanted to help the state reform.
Why has PowerPoint become the preferred presentation format for consulting firms?
In business, what we want is to immediately identify the main analyses, the actions to be taken. Rather than a long report in PDF, the PowerPoint format allows you to go straight to the point, to quickly identify priority actions. It is a tool that focuses on impact and clarity. The good analysis is then easier to convey.
In your book, you say that contrary to the meritocratic logic officially promoted, networking games within the firm are as important as the work to rise in rank. Is this phenomenon a subject of debate within firms?
Yes, in the ascent within the firm, it is important for the consultant to be able to count on relays and support in the hierarchy, beyond the success of his missions. This point can cause conflict because it somewhat contradicts the official meritocratic logic. But it is globally integrated that networking is part of the codes in circles of power. We are no longer at school, in the end it is the chef who decides. Other frustrations can arise from this Darwinian logic: I am thinking of women who return from maternity leave and who find themselves barred from their careers.
Are there unions in consulting?
In 2020, Ernst and Young employees created an inter-union. But it is the exception that proves the rule. Typically, it is an environment where there is no union. This is not the “house” culture. On the contrary, we perceive ourselves in a very individualized way, there is no collective experience. It’s about thinking about his next personal step, his “shiny” position (in sight, editor’s note) when leaving the company.
What is the sociology of consultants?
The social diversity of the consultants reflects the diversity of the school selection. The consultants are recruited in large schools which are not terribly meritocratic, they do not really reflect society, since there are only 10% of children of workers or employees. The companies of the “Big Three” are even more homogeneous. In a study currently being published, we have noted that within the Grandes Ecoles themselves, the students who will be recruited by McKinsey or BCG are more those who come from a preparatory class in the west of Paris. Because in the end, it is the co-option, the sharing of codes, of affinities, which makes the recruitment.