Going through all the postings on this site, it seems like you can probably earn the sme money or more in industry than comared to a role in consultancy. Apart from partner level postions, where the money rockets, it seems that industry pays about the same, fewer hours, ferwer stress and none of the ferocious 360 feedback appraisal stuff.Would this view be correct and if so why do so many people want yearn for consultancy when in fact the chances of getting to partnership are very low to begin with anyway

There's only 2 potential upsides to consulting:1. More variety as you get to work with different clients/industries and therefore less likely to get bored of the daily grind.2. Some (not all) industry jobs have slower career and salary progression. That said, if you're in the right role in industry it can be just as quick/quicker than consulting. I agree though, consulting for me too is offering very few unique selling points over industry now.

The golden days of consultancy are over, in my opinion. In the 80's, it was like investment banking - big salary and big bonuses. Now we're often treated like vendors, having to compete with 20 other firms for each poxy little assignment. Hammered down on price by clients who often have no respect whatsoever for the value of our skills and experience (and it's hardly surprising, given the number of cowboys in the game these days).

Why stick with industry when you could go for a public sector job? The salary looks lower but when you add in the final salary pension at 60, and greater job security....

And no-one minds when you come in in grey leather slip-ons.

Actually, it no laughing matter. The civil service is looking like an unbelievably amazing place to work. They have the ultimate business model - i.e. "give us as much money as we tell you to, or go to jail".Some advantages:- No accountability- High pay- Short hours- Huge holidays- Gold plated pension- No responsibility- Very very light workload- No pressure- No stress- Defined career path- Bonuses (yes they do those in the public sector now!)- Wear whatever you want to work- Plush offices- Job for life (compared to consultancy where your job is only secure as the next project you have lined up)- No travelThe list just goes on and on.

In my case the move has been successful and is likely to remain more lucrative at least for a few more years to come.I moved into a strategy / M&A role in-house from the strategy team of a Big 4 and my total comp will continue to outperform what I would be getting in private practice (including MBB and boutique)However, the work is harder, more stressful and equally time consuming. The upside is that you have impact, influence and interesting work all the time.

Cynic, I agree with your assessment. Once upon a time "consultant" meant management consultant - someone a client firm would turn to for advice because they could provide knowledge, usually from experience (or grade A eductaion at the junior level) and an independent opinion. Quality was worth paying for because it brought results and consultants lived and died by the results of their advice.Over the years many of these traditional firms were tempted by the easy money of IT in its various forms and by easy tie-ups to software providers. Consultancy firms grew a thousand fold and morphed into system integrators with dubious independence.In doing this a great many people made lovely lots of cash, but it has changed those firms forever. They are providers of high volume commodity services which can be undercut by cheaper geographically diverse competitors (they even undercut themselves!)Needless to say if a consultancy is providing a commodity service then it will do so with the cheapest possible commodity employees. I think this is reflected in many "consultants" that I meet today; no wider interest in business, transfering their own shortcomings onto others (particularly headhunters! - next week when I have more time I'm going to write a post on this topic).There is a return to the older style with the advent of "advisory" firms, but the golden reputations of many of these firms has been tarnished. Personally I am delighted with all this as I now find myself working freelance and providing just the sort of independent, "call a spade a spade" advise (in financial risk management where I have 20 years expertise) that clients still crave, but can no longer count on from larger firms.The future? More niche consultancies with small teams and a very focussed range of services. Working for these firms should still outpay the client side becuase it maintains the original business model of temporary access to genuine expertise - and the world will pay a premium for quality.

Interesting.Nest week, when I can bothered, I'm going to write a post on wooly old duffers who cannot get into a decent firm so wind up contracting for a few SMEs and non-entities or grabbing work of their mates as they work through the twilight of their careers, ignored by the industry and ignored by headhunters who don't want to read 6 page CVs filled with guff about 20 years experienced all enshrined in bollox about decisive yet inclusive leader with dynamism etc etc . Yawn.

Headhunter! touchy, touchy!My personal income last year? - 170K My clients last year? - three of the top five retail banks and a regulator.My "annual leave" last year? - about 50 days, mainly spent in my mortgage free holiday home in the sunMy 100% confirmed sales pipeline for this tax year? - 150 days between now and Christmas to go with the 50 I've done since April.My age? - 40Yeah, I really miss the phone calls man, where have you been, I'm really struggling to hold it together without you....if only you would call again....

I don't know - the vast majority of "independent consultants" are just contractors, paid to fulfil a temp role (albeit a specialist one) and providing even less independent advice than the systems integrators. There are plenty of independents hired back by their old companies because they know exactly what the old bosses want to hear, but they also provide a veneer of "external thinking".

Absolutely true. Most contractors would be silly to rock the boat in a way that might end the project that is feeding them - independent perhaps, unbiased most likely not.My commentary on the changes in the consultancy world were not an arguement in favour of independents over firms. I was first and formeost agreeing with Cynic that the boom times of general consultancy were no longer with us and suggesting why. Secondly I was answering the original question by suggesting that by focussing on a niche area where you excel, it is possible to earn more in consulting than on the client-side. Unfortunately focussing on specific domains is a difficult thing to scale which means smaller firms are more likely to provide higher quality know- how albeit in a narrower domain. Larger firms that have a need to scale up, inevitably do so by diluting the quality of their consultants and stretching consultants into areas where their knowledge is below expert level in order to keep them billable. The result is a higher utilisation rate, but lower day rate, which flows through into lower salaries, more in line with the clients own levels.For the record, I am happy to obtain work through recruitment firms - about 50% every year as it happens. To me they are simply another sales channel that gets my product to market. I believe Headhunter mis-read my remarks and assumed I was being anti-headhunter. On the contrary I work closely with a small group of high quality interim management firms who provide me with numerous interesting opportunities. There are many poor "recruiters" in the market, but dealing with them is simple - have the confidence to ignore them, trust your judgement and work only with those that impress you, and for heavens sake don't leave it until you lose your job before taking the time to work out who the good and bad ones are. As Headhunter appears to be inundated by CV's from old duffers, I can only conclude that his career has not yet passed the stage of working predominantly from responses to advertised positions. No doubt in time he will learn his trade and enjoy the pleasure of placing candidates for un-advertsied positions using a network of senior contacts in his target industry. No doubt....

for 170k a year I would gladly be re-hired by my old company adn would paint the thin veneer on with my tongue if need be!

Pitiful that you all believe 170k to be in any way noteworthy.

tjh,Genuine question.....Do you mean it is a paltry amount? in which case are you consultant or industry?Or do you mean money is not important so we shouldn't be focussing on it?If its the former, it would be interestign to know (generally) how you earn so much more than 170K! The "lets do it" thread shows that average earnings on this forum are more in the 40K to 90K region - not many on 120K+. Perhaps the forum is dominated by (very?) junior consultants?My guess is that here at EY one would need to be close to Director level to be pulling in 170K or better? Anybody know.....

I doubt any director at a Big4 has £170k as base? Maybe £150k and £20k bonus but that is pushing the bonus limit.

anyone care to refute this? What would it take to get 170K (or there abouts) as a base - surely new partners would be well above that?