Recently, the well-known strategic consulting firm McKinsey has faced a serious crisis. It has carried out the largest layoff in its almost 100-year history, with the number of employees dropping from 45,100 at the end of 2023 to 40,000. McKinsey has long been recognized as a leader in the consulting industry for its deep knowledge and independent advice, serving as an important think tank for global business strategy decisions. However, the consulting industry has struggled overall, and McKinsey's reputation has slowly declined. Other big firms like Boston Consulting Group, Bain, Roland Berger, and Accenture are also dealing with similar issues. More client companies are starting to question the strategic advice from these firms, and this skepticism has led to a smaller market and a loss of the industry's former legendary status.
The decline of firms like McKinsey is not accidental, but rather the result of long-term internal and external factors. One of McKinsey's founders, Marvin Bower, clearly stated that consulting firms should prioritize clients' interests and provide independent advice grounded in ethical standards. Many industry insiders have pointed out that in recent years, McKinsey and other strategic consulting firms have gradually strayed from their original professional principles in pursuit of commercial goals. With increasing market competition, many consulting firms, in order to survive and make profits, have intentionally catered to client demands by offering superficial solutions and outdated case studies, or those studies that merely peripherally touch the subject matter. These firms have long failed to provide classic or cutting-edge cases that can withstand market cycles, and they continue to recycle and heavily promote earlier achievements. This, naturally, is unable to provide the clients with innovative strategies that meet current needs, ultimately leading to a loss of client trust. The effect has been the further weakening of the already fragile trust between strategic consulting firms and their clients. Even when consulting giants drastically lower the prices of their consulting services, fewer and fewer companies are willing to pay for their advice.
Tellingly, the decline of the strategic consulting industry is not just caused by the lack of innovation, which is just the surface-level manifestation of the larger issue. What lies behind is the fact that the strategic forecasts provided by these firms lack verifiability, let alone offering appropriate advice on future trends.
With the current complex and rapidly changing global landscape, making accurate strategic predictions has become a matter of high concern for many businesses and government institutions. In this regard, ANBOUND’s founder Kung Chan clearly noted that the value of strategic judgment lies not only in whether it is correct, but also in its objectivity and verifiability.
According to information analysis theory, strategic judgment must align with actual economic laws and development trends to produce correct results. The value of any research outcome must be validated over time. Just like the forecast of economic growth rates, while there might be numerous predictions and opinions, ultimately there is only one correct result that can be verified by time.
Objectivity is another key factor in determining the correctness of strategic judgment. Any research on strategic forecasting must be based on publicly available, credible information, ensuring it is not biased toward one side or serving the special interests of a particular country. This ensures that the forecasted results are broadly applicable. This kind of objectivity is similar to how engineers build a bridge without determining which country's vehicles or pedestrians will use it. Without such objectivity, even if the forecasted results are correct, they can only be valid under specific circumstances, making it difficult to form strategic guidance with universal applicability.
In addition, in the complex and interconnected economic environment, strategic judgment should dynamically track changes at each key point and be continuously adjusted. This naturally follows a logical process, constantly tracking each factor that influences trend development, thereby creating a curve. This curve represents the strategic trend, where each node on the curve can validate the judgment made at the previous node, and simultaneously, they can be verified by the next node. This forms a verifiable and adjustable chain of strategic judgments. This method not only ensures correctness but also guarantees the objectivity of the research through a dynamic feedback mechanism. If the research method overly relies on static analysis or partial data, it is prone to selecting incorrect nodes, leading to faulty strategic predictions.
Notably, incorrect strategic judgment can lead to a continual amplification of risks, potentially evolving into far-reaching systemic challenges. With the ongoing development of the global economy, various unforeseen events, policy adjustments, and changes in international dynamics can cause initial strategic decisions to deviate from the correct path.
At the corporate level, global trade disputes and market uncertainty have led many multinational companies to face significant decision-making challenges. In such circumstances, if strategic forecasts lack time-based validation and objectivity, companies may fall into the trap of pursuing short-term gains, which could limit long-term development. Therefore, it is crucial to be aware of this potential risk when making current strategic choices. Only through precise analysis and continuous validation can the risks of erroneous decisions be reduced, ensuring the sustainability of long-term development.
At the national level, whether strategic judgment can withstand the test of time is no longer just an academic issue, but a critical element in shaping a country's strategic layout. If a nation's strategic forecasts cannot be effectively validated and corrected, it could lead to the accumulation of a series of risks at the economic and social levels. In the case of China, under the strategic layout of the country’s 15th Five-Year Plan, goals such as high-quality development, national security, and international competitiveness all rely on precise strategic judgment. Only those strategic judgment methods that adhere to correctness and objectivity can play the most significant role within the framework of national strategy. Therefore, introducing scientific and objective analytical methods into the strategic decision-making process will become a core challenge in achieving long-term goals. It is through ensuring the verifiability of strategic judgment that a country can secure a favorable position in the global competitive landscape.
In this regard, information analysis theory is the only validated judgment and analytical theory that has proven to be effective in practice.
Final analysis conclusion:
The declining state of the strategic consulting industry indicates that the market is moving away from outdated ideas dressed in empty rhetoric. Instead, it is gravitating toward verifiable strategic judgment. Objectivity and continuous refinement are essential to maintaining the value of strategic decisions. Conversely, neglecting these principles can result in flawed strategic judgments that, at best, trap companies and nations in short-term profit-driven traps, and at worst, hinder long-term growth. Therefore, during China’s 15th Five-Year Plan period, constructing verifiable strategic judgment has become not just an academic concern but a critical element in shaping the country's strategic framework.
