The Big Con
How the Consulting Industry Weakens our Businesses, Infantilizes our Governments and Warps our Economies
-
-
4.0 • 3 Ratings
-
-
- $16.99
-
- $16.99
Publisher Description
There is an entrenched relationship between the consulting industry and the way business and government are managed today which must change.
Mariana Mazzucato and Rosie Collington show that our economies' reliance on companies such as McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group, Bain & Company, PwC, Deloitte, KPMG and EY stunts innovation, obfuscates corporate and political accountability and impedes our collective mission of halting climate breakdown.
The 'Big Con' describes the confidence trick the consulting industry performs in contracts with hollowed-out and risk-averse governments and shareholder value-maximizing firms. It grew from the 1980s and 1990s in the wake of reforms by both the neoliberal right and Third Way progressives, and it thrives on the ills of modern capitalism, from financialization and privatization to the climate crisis. It is possible because of the unique power that big consultancies wield through extensive contracts and networks - as advisors, legitimators and outsourcers - and the illusion that they are objective sources of expertise and capacity. To make matters worse, our best and brightest graduates are often redirected away from public service into consulting. In all these ways, the Big Con weakens our businesses, infantilizes our governments and warps our economies.
Mazzucato and Collington expertly debunk the myth that consultancies always add value to the economy. With a wealth of original research, they argue brilliantly for investment and collective intelligence within all organizations and communities, and for a new system in which public and private sectors work innovatively for the common good. We must recalibrate the role of consultants and rebuild economies and governments that are fit for purpose.
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
Multinational consultancies, including McKinsey & Co., Boston Consulting Group, and PwC, have co-opted government operations to suit their own business models, according to this immersive and exhaustive study by economists Mazzucato (Mission Economy) and Collington. Noting that the neoliberal "Third Way" embraced by leaders including Bill Clinton and Tony Blair held that governments should "steer more, row less," Mazzucato and Collington show how public services came to be outsourced to private firms. Consultants and contractors won governments' confidence by placing experienced public sector veterans in management roles and recruiting eager Ivy League grads to do the legwork. Dazzling PowerPoint presentations and quasi-academic in-house studies enhanced consulting firms' credibility, despite such failures as the disastrous launch of the Affordable Care Act's enrollment website, HealthCare.gov. Even more disturbing are studies suggesting that consultancies are actively working against the public interest by simultaneously serving fossil fuel companies while advising governments and corporations on their climate change policies. Among other direct and persuasive solutions, the authors suggest the enhancement of conflict of interest disclosure requirements and empowering public sector organizations "to take risks." Doggedly researched and elegantly written, this is a fascinating entry point into a critical yet underreported issue.
Customer Reviews
The magazine piece that grew
3.5 stars
The authors’ thesis is that the pervasive reliance of both government and private companies nowadays on McKinsey & Company, Boston Consulting Group, Bain & Company, PwC, Deloitte, KPMG, EY — the list goes goes — is bad for innovation and accountability, and impedes progress against climate change, among other things. They provide a concise summary of how the various consulting forms came into being and a series of anecdotes showing the adverse effect of use of consultants on in-house capability, in both the public and private sectors, leads to more dependence on big consulting firms, who frequently represent both sides in contested situations, but rarely, if ever, declare conflicts of interest. Furthermore, consultants’ unwillingness to express doubt about anything leads to poor outcomes. (The titular con) They conclude by recommending governments develop more in-house consulting and cite Germany as an example. Given the energy pickle the Germans got themselves into in recent years, I was not convinced.
The prose reads more like journalism than academic work — no bad thing — but the supporting evidence cited is overwhelmingly anecdotal. While the authors make some good points, they could have made them equally well in a longish magazine article IMO.