Staffing model

Great question! There are indeed some inherent disadvantages to firms that are more bottom heavy, with a higher number of associates and fewer partners/principals. Let's explore a few key implications:

Experience Gap: A bottom-heavy firm may have a larger pool of junior staff members, which can result in a significant experience gap between junior and senior levels. This could limit the firm's ability to provide in-depth expertise and senior-level guidance to clients, especially in complex and high-stakes projects.

Limited Leadership Capacity: With fewer partners/principals, the firm may face challenges in terms of leadership capacity. This could impact strategic decision-making, business development, and overall firm management. It may also limit the firm's ability to pursue larger-scale projects or expand into new markets.

Client Perception: Clients often value the expertise and senior-level involvement of partners/principals in consulting engagements. A bottom-heavy firm may face challenges in establishing credibility and winning client trust, as clients may perceive a lack of senior leadership involvement and experience.

Career Progression and Retention: A larger associate pool can create a more competitive internal environment for career progression. Associates may face challenges in advancing to more senior roles, resulting in potential talent retention issues. This could impact the firm's ability to retain top talent and build a strong pipeline of future leaders.

Expertise Depth: A higher ratio of associates to partners/principals may limit the firm's ability to develop deep expertise in specific industries or functional areas. This could impact the firm's competitiveness in winning specialized projects or serving clients with complex needs.

However, it's important to note that every firm's structure and talent mix have their own advantages and disadvantages. Some firms may intentionally adopt a bottom-heavy structure to foster a strong talent pipeline, promote a culture of mentorship and learning, and offer competitive pricing to clients. The key is for the firm to strategically manage these disadvantages by ensuring effective knowledge transfer, mentoring programs, and structured career development paths.

Ultimately, the success of a consulting firm relies on its ability to leverage the strengths of its talent pool and align its structure with its strategic objectives and client needs.

Hi,

Interesting question. I'll share some perspectives coming from a mid-size T2 (which was more top heavy) and then at MBB (more bottom heavy), and also from knowledge from my network of friends at boutiques. Your question phrasing is a little vague but I will interpret it as asking how firm org shape affects your staffing experience/model as a consultant.

First, 3 important contextual points:

1.  Your seniority will affect how you are impacted by the ‘shape’ of the org → i assume you are at a junior level so I will angle my response to focus more on that
2. The actual staffing operating model (or how staffing works) also plays an important role in your staffing experience (e.g. how much power staffing has, how crystallized and respected are the processes etc)
3. Top/bottom heavy is driven by a couple of factors - namely global firm size/scale, specific office/geography maturity. Generally - my experience is that MBB will not be that top-heavy, the difference will more likely be in terms of how the ‘base’ of the org looks like i.e. is it more a ‘Pyramid’ (more undergrads) or ‘Diamond’ (more post-MBA). Top heavy may be an issue especially for mid-size or boutique firms, especially in developing markets

Some general points (from a junior perspective) on ‘bottom heavy’ firms

1. Increased competition for staffing
   • This will be true regardless of the staffing model (e.g. its a fixed and fair process OR its an opaque and relationship, adhoc process)
   • More people are competing for the same project, or to work with a specific leadership team
     • it gets worse when everyone wants to be on that 1 cool/sexy project
   • More broadly this can also be a big downside during downturns (like now) when project demand is not growing or large enough to staff the pool
2. More difficult to stand out and differentiate and build your reputation
   • From a staffing perspective, this is important as at the end of the day, staffing is a function of how much people want you to be on their project as well

Above are specific to the staffing model - but there are of course other benefits to having a large junior base that extend beyond the staffing model (e.g. affiliation, better project resourcing (so you die less by having heavy workload), knowledge transfer, support groups etc).

Happy to answer any more specific questions you might have. 

Disadvantages to whom?

You? The firm? Clients?

Ultimately, the more bottom heavy then technically the less mentorship you'll get. At the same time, there's less of a risk of too may chefs in the kitchen.

Yes, there are. And the opposite is true as well.

For you, it means less access to expert/quality training. Also means that you get a more strict up or out. It also means that the type of work may be more geared towards analyst / PMO type of work (but not necessarily).

Hi there, 

Partners are usually an indication of the number of projects. 

Fewer Partners, fewer projects. 

Fewer projects, more difficult to get staffed. 

That translates into fewer learning opportunities and lowered visibility. 

Which then leads to slower promotions and higher attrition rates. 

So, yes, I guess there are some disadvantages :)

Best,
Cristian

Hello,

That's an interesting question. I wouldn't say so - in fact, most firms are going to have a professional hierarchy of the way you describe. Partners/principals typically work across many projects and clients, while associates concentrate on one project at a time and you need multiple of them per project, so you're generally going to see more juniors and fewer seniors at any given firm on average.