Accenture Strategy Q&A
Monkeys: I feel like there are a lot of misconceptions/confusion about Accenture Strategy so wanted to start a Q&A to give anyone interested an opportunity to get more info. I am a current Strategy Consultant (pre-MBA), and have been with the firm for a few years since graduating from undergrad b school (think Stern / Haas / McIntire). Based in a major city (NY / SF) This thread will skip the BS and salesy stuff -- I'll provide unbiased answers. Topics I'd be happy to speak to include, but are not limited to: the recent Accenture reorg, our position in the market and who we compete with, common project work for Strategy consultants, specific practice areas, our recruiting process, MBA sponsorship, exits, etc.
hockeylife1036 thanks for the AMA! Any advice for someone pre-MBA with corporate experience (F500 Industrial, O&G) wanting to join Accenture?
Tips on how to get noticed and land an interview?
Do you think the recent merge with Consulting (ie Strategy & Consulting) will hurt or devalue the Accenture Strategy brand?
What are the most typical exit opportunities for Accenture Strategy Analysts - Consultants?
What have been the ranges for base salaries and % bonuses you have received as an Analyst, Senior Analyst, and Consultant?
Which do you perceive to be the most prestigious areas within Accenture Strategy?
Do you see yourself at Accenture for a long time? Why or why not?
This is certainly a risk. There's an opinion amongst our leadership team that these two groups needed to be merged, and the reasoning for that seems relatively sound (better collaboration and in-market execution at clients, more closely aligned incentives for partners selling work, easier for clients to understand the groups, etc.) What is less clear is how we continue to maintain Strategy's reputation as a group with higher pay, better exits, and higher-impact work when these two groups move into one BU. If leadership solves for this and articulates it well to the legacy strategy group, I think the re-org make sense. I believe that strategy will continue to play this role but I worry that we have a lot to do to communicate this to recruiting talent at our target undergrad and MBA programs
Most common by a considerable margin are strategy and corporate finance roles at one of our F500 clients. These roles can sit within different groups including corporate development, internal consulting, strategic planning, corporate finance, or "office of the CEO" or "special projects" type groups. Also common is functional roles in supply chain, marketing, data analytics, or product. I've seen these at a wide range of companies but notable ones include Apple, Google, Nike, and Uber. Also common is "value creation" or portfolio ops teams at MM private equity funds and chief of staff type roles to executives at small and mid-sized companies
pay bands are standardized and publicly available thru managementconsulted
This varies by individual criteria as most groups are strong in different ways and the answer depends on what you are looking for. However, to give my two cents, I think most would agree that CFO&EV and Customer Insights and Growth Strategy are very active from a functional perspective, and CMT, Retail, and Consumer Goods & Services are high-performing industry practices.
Until business school then undecided about returning after that or not
This is some AMA!
1) This does not vary by office. Accenture Strategy is a traditional travel-heavy shop with a regional/national staffing model. In other words, project teams are made up of consultants from different offices. For example, while I'm based on one of the coasts, I've worked in the North East, South East, South West, and West Coast. Where you are based has little to no bearing on the extent to which your projects are strategic. It will, however, impact the industries you may find yourself working in. As you would guess, SF office has a heavy bend towards high-tech and software & platforms, lots of media & entertainment and Retail in LA, lots of FS, Retail, and Pharma, and lots of Resources/Energy work in Houston.
2) In theory, Strategy resources should not be doing any implementation work because our Management Consulting group (which is larger and has folks with more specialized skillsets as opposed to generalist consulting skills) is supposed to be on hand to operationalize the high-level direction or blueprint set by Strategy.
The above is generally a great model that we deliver well to a diverse set of clients. It has been adopted across the industry (look at the way S& partners with PwC Advisory or traditional McK working with McK Implementation). However, the one thing this model does not account for is that consulting is a people business, and people buy consulting services from people. So if a client buys work from Strategy, and the Strategy team does a great job, they're sometimes hesitant to lose that team for follow-on phases. Additionally, they are more than willing to continue paying Strategy rates well after the strategic phase of the project is over. Thus, a Strategy resource can find themselves in a position where clients or even MDs are throwing this model out the window and essentially begging him or her to stay for as long as they can be convinced.
While I don't believe the above paradigm is unique to Accenture, given the amount of implementation work being done by McK, BCG and some of our T2 competitors, it is also completely avoidable. To stay on Strategy projects, jr resources need to advocate for themselves. They need to remind engagement leads why they are not a fit for a project in the context of the above model, and challenge the notion that continuity of resources is necessary for the success of follow-on phases of work (it rarely is. If it was, no one would ever roll off of clients ever)
3) They are rare but not unheard of for Analysts. At the Consultant through SM level, they become much more common, either through cross-border staffing, Accenture Development Programs, or full-blown transfers to international offices.
4) No. I have seen examples of strategy analysts having turned down offers out of undergrad across nearly all of our T2 competitors. Laterals are less common. Unless it is to go to MBB, which is very difficult to do at the analyst level, there is limited benefit to lateraling. You would be forgoing the network you've built at your firm only to lateral and probably find yourself at another T2 doing the same work for the same pay at the same clients.
I've seen laterals at higher levels. Most common is Strategy Managers leaving for MBB, mostly stepping back to join at the post-mba level (e.g. Consultant / Associate)
5) Business school placement is very strong… To the point where I was a bit surprised. While H/S is less common, the firm sends swaths of people each year to Wharton, Sloan, Booth, and Kellog. Also common are schools in the tier right below such as Tuck, Darden, Ross. Many attend with sponsorship via the Strategy Scholars Program.
6) They vary in length, but a 10+ month engagement would be considered very long. While not unheard of, this is a severe outlier. To provide some examples, assessment or dilligence engagements can be quite quick (2-8 weeks), while strategic planning or op model type work can be a bit longer (2-4 months).
7) This is only speculation, but I think a few things are in play here. 1) the point I made above about the cost-benefit of lateraling to a competitor is very real when considering foregone network / starting over. 2) Our work-life balance is solid. We work plenty (usually 50-70 hr weeks) but I don't stay at client sites 'til 2am and I rarely work more than a Sunday afternoon on weekends. Many new parents find this appealing. 3) the work we do is interesting. We regularly win big deals at blue chip clients. Sure we're not defining Apple's 10 year vision or structuring government reforms that shake up economies, but they're not dog shit engagements either. My projects have resulted in headline grabbing developments on more than one occasion. I've met c-suite executives at brands I've known been a fan of since I was a kid. It's not a gimic. 4) we don't send people to PE-type exits, and I think many people fear that going into industry will be boring and slow