Embarrassing: Boston Consulting Group – The Big Business Fairy Tale – Activism instead of strategy – No time for deep work

The Economics of Illusion: A Critical Analysis of Modern Consulting Structures Using the Example of High-Level Strategy

In a world that often mistakes speed for progress, a top management consultant's appointment book is considered the ultimate status symbol. But what happens when you peel back the glossy surface of frequent flyer status, marathon meetings, and exorbitant daily rates? An economic deconstruction reveals something shocking.

We often look with awe at the “road warriors” of global strategy consultancies: senior partners who commute between continents to steer the transformation of the world economy. But a closer look at the typical daily routine of an executive in the field of artificial intelligence reveals that this model may be outdated. Instead of deep intellectual engagement with complex problems, managing a lack of time is paramount.

The following analysis does not take this prototypical workday as evidence of performance, but rather as a symptom of a profound problem within the consulting industry. It poses the uncomfortable question of whether companies still pay for genuine problem-solving expertise or merely finance a costly charade of importance, where constant activity has long since supplanted substantive content. This analysis is intended as a critical examination of the economics of this performance and draws on the article published by Business Insider about the daily work routine of Amanda Luther, Managing Director and Senior Partner at the Boston Consulting Group, which appeared on businessinsider.de under the title "I'm a Senior Partner at BCG – This is What a Typical Day in My Life Looks Like.".

More about it here:

• Business Insider | I'm a Senior Partner at BCG – this is what a typical day in my life looks like

The expensive illusion of omnipresence and the erosion of genuine value creation in the global consulting elite

The Paradox of the Hyperactive Expert

In the modern business landscape, a phenomenon has become established that, upon closer examination, raises fundamental questions about efficiency and actual value creation. We observe a class of highly paid decision-makers and consultants whose daily work is characterized by an extremely high volume of activity, travel, and communicative interaction. A prominent example of this is the daily work of a senior partner at the Boston Consulting Group, responsible for AI strategy. This daily routine, often portrayed as the epitome of success and importance, reveals glaring weaknesses upon rigorous economic and organizational sociological analysis. The suspicion arises that here, activism is being mistaken for productivity, and frantic activity for strategic depth.

If we deconstruct the described daily routine, we don't see the image of a profound, visionary thinker delving into complex technological transformations, but rather that of a highly paid coordinator threatened with drowning in a flood of administrative and representational tasks. In economic theory, this is a classic agency problem, coupled with inefficiency in resource allocation. The client pays for high-performance expertise but, in reality, receives the time of a person who barely has any room left for in-depth cognitive engagement. This discrepancy between the promised outcome—profound strategic transformation through artificial intelligence—and the lived reality—meetings on the way to the airport and curating reading recommendations—is the focus of the following analysis. The aim is to examine whether the traditional model of top management consulting, in its current form, is still viable in the age of AI, or whether we are witnessing a costly charade of relevance that is hardly justifiable from an economic standpoint.

Suitable for:

• Pseudo-experts and AI dumping: Why the traditional consulting market is imploding

The fragmentation of cognitive resources and the illusion of knowledge superiority

Mornings are my time for reflection

The described start to the day already reveals the first structural deficiency of the modern consultant profile. The protagonist describes being a leading researcher of AI trends, but her work primarily consists of consuming internal memos and newsletters to generate top-10 lists. From a hierarchical perspective, this is an activity of information aggregation, not information synthesis or even innovation. In an age where information is ubiquitous, simply filtering external sources hardly generates any real added value that justifies daily rates in the high four- to five-figure range.

The real problem, however, lies deeper: cognitive fragmentation. Genuine strategic work, especially in a field as complex as artificial intelligence, requires what computer science professor Cal Newport calls deep work—the ability to immerse oneself in a cognitively demanding task without distraction. When the expert states that she is desperately searching for two uninterrupted hours just to develop a perspective on generative AI, it's a red flag. It implies that strategy development is a byproduct, squeezed into the margins of an overflowing schedule.

From an economic perspective, the consultancy is selling a commodity it cannot produce in its own manufacturing process. Strategic depth requires time and intellectual leisure. A rigidly structured schedule that primarily consists of reaction hinders proactive, in-depth thinking. The knowledge advantage that such senior partners suggest is often not based on their own original intellectual work, but rather on the rapid assimilation of superficial knowledge. While exchanging ideas in chat groups with former classmates may be inspiring, it does not replace a sound, methodologically rigorous analysis of technical feasibility. We are witnessing a dangerous decoupling of actual technical expertise and strategic consulting. AI is discussed based on headlines and newsletters, instead of fundamentally understanding the underlying mechanisms and their real-world implications for business models. The result is strategies that often remain generic and fail in the operational reality of companies because they are based on buzzwords rather than technical substance.

The bureaucratization of consulting and the dominance of transaction costs

The afternoons are filled with internal meetings

A striking aspect of the analyzed daily routine is the ratio of internal to external communication. The majority of the day is spent in internal meetings. From the perspective of transaction cost theory, this is an indicator of massive inefficiency. If a senior partner, whose time is the firm's most valuable asset, is primarily occupied with coordinating internal processes, aligning teams, and passing on pressure, then the client ultimately pays not for a solution to their problem, but for the maintenance of the consulting firm's complex internal structure.

This internal navel-gazing is symptomatic of large professional service firms. The more complex the organization, the more energy is required to keep the system's entropy low. The described mild tension and the pressure passed on to the teams are often artificially created to simulate a sense of urgency that is often unfounded. This leads to a culture of activism in which movement is mistaken for progress.

Particularly critical is the statement that executive boards are asking about AI because the topic is almost existential, yet projects often fail. This reveals the shortcomings of the current consulting approach. Consultants often act as anxiety therapists for management, addressing the FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) of the C-suite. However, instead of delivering robust, technically validated implementation plans, they often sell a strategic vision that clashes with organizational reality. The fact that projects fail is often presented as an unavoidable risk of innovation. In reality, they often fail because the consulting takes place on a meta-level, detached from operational realities. If the consultant primarily coordinates internally and communicates only at the C-level, the link to the operational level—the shift manager in the restaurant who is supposed to use the AI—is missing. The described complexity of a fast-food restaurant cannot be solved by top-down strategies developed in internal meetings between airport transfers, but only by a deep understanding of the processes on site – for which there is simply no time in this model.

Our EU and Germany expertise in business development, sales and marketing - Image: Xpert.Digital

Industry focus: B2B, digitalization (from AI to XR), mechanical engineering, logistics, renewable energies and industry

More about it here:

• Xpert Business Hub

A topic hub with insights and expertise:

• Knowledge platform on the global and regional economy, innovation and industry-specific trends
• Collection of analyses, impulses and background information from our focus areas
• A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
• Topic hub for companies that want to learn about markets, digitalization and industry innovations

Emotional labor as a substitute for substantive content

I sometimes have difficult conversations about people's careers

What's interesting is the strong emphasis on the emotional component and so-called people management tasks. Of course, leadership is an essential part of any senior role. In the consulting industry, however, this emphasis often serves to mask a lack of technical depth. The narrative shifts from "we deliver the best technical solution" to "we manage the most difficult transformations." Having tissues on hand and managing tears is presented as a core competency.

From an economic perspective, this is a fascinating phenomenon. Highly paid strategists spend significant portions of their time on tasks that fall more into the realm of psychological support or HR management. The so-called "up-or-out" principle of these companies creates systemic insecurity and anxiety among employees (the worry of whether they'll be assigned to the right project). The partners then have to pick up the pieces of this system's mess. This is a self-inflicted inefficiency. The system generates stress, which the system's most expensive resources then have to manage.

For the client, this is worthless. They pay for the result, not for the consulting firm's internal therapy sessions. But this narrative of tough talks also serves the partners' self-legitimization. It suggests an emotional weight and responsibility that justifies their status. It's part of the consultant's self-portrayal as a wise guide through turbulent times, often overlooking the fact that many of these storms are in teacups, created in the first place by the industry itself. The concern about whether teams are positioned correctly is fundamentally a question of resource allocation. That this consumes so much of a senior partner's mental energy points to deficient internal market mechanisms or inefficient planning tools—an irony for a firm that claims to teach other companies efficiency.

Suitable for:

• When innovation meets resistance: The structural dilemma of organizational ambidexterity | Xpert Business

The economic absurdity of physical hyper-mobility

I often fly to another city at 5 pm

Nowhere is the anachronism of the business model more evident than in travel activity. Visiting four cities in a week is an economic and environmental disaster in a digitally connected world, especially for someone who preaches AI strategies and digital transformation. It is the ultimate symbol of inefficiency. Travel time, even when filled with phone calls, is never as productive as focused work in a stable environment.

Why go to all this trouble? It's a signaling phenomenon. The senior partner's physical presence signals to the client the importance of the service and justifies the high fees. It's a Veblen effect: the more elaborate and expensive its provision appears, the more valuable the service is perceived to be. If the partner flies in especially for this purpose, what he has to say must be important.

From a rational perspective, however, this mobility is pure waste. The opportunity costs are enormous. The hours spent in security checks, taxis, and airplane seats are hours unavailable for the in-depth analysis identified as so necessary in the first section. Moreover, this behavior undermines any sustainability efforts, which are often also part of consulting strategies for clients. The fact that flight delays are identified as the biggest threat to work-life balance and sleep demonstrates the fragility of this system. A business model that collapses or generates massive personal stress as soon as a plane is delayed is not resilient. It is precarious and relies on an increasingly unreliable infrastructure. The productivity hack of making phone calls while traveling is, in reality, just damage control. It's an attempt to somehow monetize time that is essentially lost. Real value creation looks different.

Cultural symbolism and the commodification of intellectuality

I always make time for personal reading

The section on reading one hundred books a year and studying presidential biographies fulfills an important function in the elite's self-presentation. It serves to build cultural capital. The advisor presents himself not as a mere technocrat, but as a comprehensively educated polymath. Reading biographies of powerful men (presidents) reflects the claim to be part of the history-making class or at least to understand its mechanisms.

However, the nature of the reading needs to be critically examined. With such a workload and the described time pressure, it often amounts to passive, scanning reading rather than in-depth, study-based analysis. This fits the pattern of top-10 lists: knowledge is viewed as a commodity to be consumed in large quantities to enhance one's marketability and conversational value at dinner. It's a quantitative approach to intellectual development.

The mention of science fiction and the Hugo Award is also strategically interesting. It signals a forward-thinking approach and imagination – essential attributes for someone selling AI strategies. Yet, here too, the lingering aftertaste of superficiality remains. Does the reading truly broaden one's horizons, or is it merely fuel for the next small talk with a CEO about the future of humanity? In the attention economy, erudition is a currency. But, as with fiat currency, the question of its backing arises. Is what is read translated into innovative concepts, or does it remain decorative embellishment? Given the lack of time for in-depth reflection on generative AI, it's reasonable to suspect that while intellectual curiosity is present, it is systematically stifled from its true development by the operational hamster wheel effect.

The systemic deficit: Why expensive doesn't equal good

The analysis of this workday reveals a fundamental imbalance that is symptomatic of the entire top management consulting industry. We see here a classic case of input-output asymmetry. The input – extremely long working hours, high travel expenses, massive stress, emotional exhaustion – is enormous. The output described, however – summaries of newsletters, internal coordination meetings, reassuring conversations with board members – is disproportionately low.

The market mechanism seems to have failed here, or more precisely: it operates according to different rules than pure productivity. Companies often buy consulting firms not for their superior problem-solving skills, but to reduce uncertainty. They buy the BCG brand to protect themselves in case of failure ("We've hired the best"). The senior partner acts as the high priest of this protection. Their role is the ritualistic oversight of decisions, not necessarily their substantive optimization.

The problem described by the protagonist—that projects fail despite everyone talking about them—is directly attributable to this structure. True AI implementation is a technical and operational problem, not a rhetorical one. It requires time, experimentation, detailed technical knowledge, and close integration with the frontline team. The described daily routine offers none of this. Instead, it offers meetings, flights, and meta-discussions. This is the "cheese" rather than the outcome. It's expensive process management without any real substance.

The danger to this model lies in the disruption caused by the very technology being sold. AI will increasingly be able to take over information aggregation tasks (newsletters, trend scanning). If a senior partner's knowledge base consists primarily of reading emails, she can be replaced by a well-trained agent. What remains is the human element—the executives holding hands. This is a legitimate service, but it hardly justifies the margins and the aura of strategic infallibility that the industry cultivates.

We are heading towards a shake-up. Companies will increasingly realize that the consultants' "activism"—the travel, the numerous meetings—is not a sign of quality, but rather a cost driver with no correlation to project success. The future of consulting should actually lie in slowing down and focusing more deeply: fewer projects, less travel, but instead genuine, in-depth technical understanding and time for thorough analysis. However, the current incentive mechanism of large firms, based on maximizing revenue through billable hours, is diametrically opposed to this.

Thus, the workday analyzed here remains a document of transition—a testament to an era in which presence was mistaken for performance and frantic activity for strategic relevance. It is an expensive spectacle, performed on the stages of global conference rooms, whose ticket prices are becoming increasingly difficult to justify. The “outcome” is often just another PowerPoint presentation explaining why the next transformation is even more urgent than the last—a perpetual motion machine of consulting, fueled by client anxiety and consultants' restlessness.

The need for a new definition of expertise

The critical deconstruction of Amanda Luther's daily routine is not an attack on the person, but a vivisection of an ailing system. The picture that emerges is that of a highly intelligent worker trapped in a system that neutralizes her cognitive abilities with logistical and administrative overhead.

When we talk about true economic efficiency, we have to ask: Wouldn't it be more sensible if this expert had 20 hours a week to really think deeply about generative AI, instead of making calls in airport lounges? Wouldn't the value for the customer be significantly higher if the strategy were based on sound, in-house research rather than the aggregation of external knowledge?

The answer is a resounding yes. But the business model of the big consultancies is geared towards scaling human labor, not wisdom. As long as clients are willing to pay for the spectacle of activity, this wheel will keep turning. But there are increasing signs that the real economy's patience with this model is waning. True expertise isn't measured by the number of cities visited per week, but by the clarity and actionability of ideas. And these arise in silence, not in the noise of business class. The "cheese" may be expensive and well-packaged, but it doesn't satisfy businesses. It's time for a diet—fewer calories in the form of unnecessary meetings and travel, more nutrients in the form of real, hard, intellectual work.

☑️ Our business language is English or German

☑️ NEW: Correspondence in your national language!

Konrad Wolfenstein

I would be happy to serve you and my team as a personal advisor.

You can contact me by filling out the contact form or simply call me on +49 89 89 674 804 (Munich) . My email address is: wolfenstein ∂ xpert.digital

I'm looking forward to our joint project.

☑️ SME support in strategy, consulting, planning and implementation

☑️ Creation or realignment of the digital strategy and digitalization

☑️ Expansion and optimization of international sales processes

☑️ Global & Digital B2B trading platforms

☑️ Pioneer Business Development / Marketing / PR / Trade Fairs

Benefit from Xpert.Digital's extensive, fivefold expertise in a comprehensive service package | R&D, XR, PR & Digital Visibility Optimization - Image: Xpert.Digital

Xpert.Digital has in-depth knowledge of various industries. This allows us to develop tailor-made strategies that are tailored precisely to the requirements and challenges of your specific market segment. By continually analyzing market trends and following industry developments, we can act with foresight and offer innovative solutions. Through the combination of experience and knowledge, we generate added value and give our customers a decisive competitive advantage.

More about it here:

• Use the 5x expertise of Xpert.Digital in one package - starting at just €500/month