Related Posts
Has on-site opportunities started in Novartis?
How much MDs (level 4) make in Canada?
Additional Posts in Consulting
61% utilization as a first year associate. RIP
Looking for some likes, happy Sunday 🐠
Controversial: Work-Life Balance Is Overrated.
New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Yes, Monitor Deloitte is a bit better. They have a true strategy firm background / foundation from legacy Monitor. Accenture on the other hand doesn’t have that, aside from a few small acquisitions like Kurt Salmon, and even those acquisitions it’s debatable how much true “high level strategy” work they did/do versus more “strategic initiatives” work (which is still interesting and mission critical for c-suite). Both are very good firms though, and both are investing heavily in the future capabilities of where strategy consulting is going (AI, ML, digital capabilities, etc.).
I honestly think your friend can’t go wrong with either. Probably comes down more to cultural fit, practice/people they would align to and work with, and how excited each firm seems to be about being them joining. Always best to go where you are most wanted.
Lastly, for what its worth, based on anecdotes over the years from friends at both firms, Accenture seems to have better WLB and is less intense / more collaborative than Deloitte, although the total comp at Deloitte can be better if you are top rated (otherwise, probably comparable).
There is a core difference between them. “High level strategy” typically answers two primary questions: where to play, how to win (you can debate there are other valid questions to add, but these are the most critical). It lays out the fundamental framework and focus that the company will use for decision making and resource allocation. “Strategic initiatives” is putting into action those decisions via capability building and both internal/external activities, in a disciplined way that aligns to the strategy logic. Both are critical to the business, but you can’t go and just “do” strategic initiatives effectively without first having defined a sound logic / framework for what you do and how. And this needs to be an iterative, continuous cycle.
Also, just to clarify, what you described or listed (mission, vision, values) are not truly a “strategy”and the first two are actually pretty dated concepts. Leading companies today are defining themselves more around a “purpose” than a “mission/vision”.
Yes
Following this
Depends on how you define better. I think overall the work is closer to typical strategy work (vs a heavy IT angle) so if that’s what you want, then yeah, it’s better.