Steve Jobs Critics about Consulting

Question

Steve Jobs once made a critical comment about consulting, suggesting that consultants lack the experience of seeing their recommendations through to implementation and the opportunity to learn deeply from their mistakes. He said:

"Without owning something over an extended period of time, like a few years, where one has a chance to take responsibility for one's recommendations, see them through all stages, and accumulate scar tissue for the mistakes, one learns a fraction of what one can. Coming in and making recommendations without owning the results is a fraction of the value and the opportunity to learn. You get a broad cut at companies, but it's very thin and two-dimensional."

Additionally, many people believe that "Consultants get a bad rap because it’s very easy to pretend you’re an expert in something you’re not, and they don’t get to learn the depth of the issues."

What are your thoughts on these critiques from Steve Jobs and the general public? How do you think they align or conflict with the consulting profession today? Are there specific ways in which modern consultants can or have addressed these criticisms? How do consulting firms ensure that their consultants have the depth of knowledge and accountability necessary to deliver real value to clients?

Answer 1

Hi there,

Interesting question!

2 quick perspectives on this:

The lack of ownership and hands-on responsibility over the long term (e.g., the full life cycle of a product or the lifetime of a strategy project and implementation) is definitely a key reason why many people leave the profession after a few years.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of how consulting firms operate with regards to their expertise. Client-facing consultants (who are often extremely junior and may lack industry-specific expertise) act as the interface between the client and the support organization of their firm that is active in the back. When you hire a McKinsey team, for instance, with the classic model (EM+2), the team will constantly pull in the firm's experts in the analysis, the problem-solving etc. This is the part that clients usually do not see but you are not hiring just 3 people and a partner, you are hiring the full organization.

Cheers,

Florian

Answer 2

It depends what is the reason why you hire consultants.

If you are doing a reorganization… well, experienced consultants have seen many organizations and went through many reorgs. Sometimes they do multiple reorgs in the same organization (not because the previous one went bad, but because the organization evolved and needed to change). How does that compare with the workers of the company… who've done none? But at the same time, they know their company and can provide valuable inputs and insights. And they should still be in the driving seat, not the consultants. Consultants give advice. Companies that don't challenge that advice are abstaining from providing the valuable inputs that are needed for the project success.

Regarding strategy… same thing. Consultants are great to analyze the market, bring insights about the competition, find new opportunities… but the decision has to be made by the company, not the consultants. It's all about the combination between the expertise of the two that brings success. Consultants bring the options and the evidence. But they don't have the specific business experience.

The real issues usually are with process improvement. Very frequently you'll have consultants improving processes whose impact they won't really understand - and you'll have decision makers accepting those changes because they also don't understand the consequences (but want to cut cost, or streamline process, or some other objective). And here, once again… the issue is the same. Who's on the driver seat? It has to be the company employees, and not the consultants.

Answer 3

Steve Jobs’ critique captures a profound and enduring challenge within the consulting profession: the inherent tension between delivering broad strategic insights and assuming deep, sustained accountability for outcomes. His observation that consultants “make recommendations without owning the results” reflects a structural limitation that many in the profession recognize—without long-term involvement in implementation, consultants often lack the opportunity to fully learn from the real-world consequences of their advice.

The Breadth-Depth Tradeoff

Consulting engagements typically involve rotating across diverse industries and projects, which cultivates a wide-ranging strategic perspective and sharp analytical skills. However, this rapid exposure often comes at the expense of developing deep operational understanding and organizational context within any single client. As a result, consultants may be perceived as outsiders who apply generalized frameworks without fully appreciating complex, nuanced challenges inherent in client environments.

This tradeoff can lead to the public perception, echoed by Jobs and others, that consultants sometimes “pretend to be experts” without the opportunity to grapple with the full complexity and messiness of execution. The absence of ownership of outcomes means consultants rarely experience the “scar tissue” that builds true expertise—the hard-earned lessons from successes and failures over time.

How Consulting Has Evolved to Address These Critiques

The profession has been evolving significantly in response to these valid criticisms. Many firms now emphasize end-to-end client engagements, spanning not only strategy formulation but also the critical phases of implementation, change management, and performance measurement. By embedding consultants deeper into client organizations over longer periods, firms create conditions where consultants share responsibility for actual outcomes and iterative learning.

Moreover, there is a growing focus on industry and functional specialization. Firms invest in building deep domain expertise—especially in complex areas like supply chain, operations, and digital transformation—allowing consultants to ground their recommendations in practical realities and operational constraints.

Leading consultancies also prioritize rigorous training and continuous knowledge development, fostering consultants’ ability to navigate complex challenges with both technical proficiency and contextual wisdom. Performance management increasingly links consultant incentives to client success metrics, reinforcing a culture of accountability.

The Role of Accountability and Ownership

True learning and value creation stem from owning the entire journey—from problem diagnosis through strategy design to hands-on execution and adaptation. This ownership cultivates resilience, practical insight, and nuanced judgment that can only be gained by living with the consequences of decisions.

Firms that successfully integrate this ownership mindset—combining strategic advisory with implementation responsibility—demonstrate higher client satisfaction and more sustainable impact. For example, organizations like SCM Champs embody this approach by blending strategic rigor with operational immersion, enabling consultants to develop deep expertise while driving measurable results.

Conclusion

Steve Jobs’ critique remains a powerful reminder that consulting’s true value lies not just in the breadth of exposure or elegant recommendations but in the depth of accountability and learning that comes from seeing ideas through to real-world impact. While consulting has traditionally been viewed as a largely advisory role, modern firms are evolving to close this gap—embedding consultants in client execution, investing in deep specialization, and fostering a culture of ownership. This transformation enables consultants to deliver not just insights, but tangible, lasting value.