70,000.
Imagine 70,000 people all gathered together. Practically a full stadium. Well: McKinsey’s alumni network now counts no fewer than 70,000 former colleagues worldwide. A community that spans companies, institutions, funds and start-ups (McKinsey & Company). And this is because new people join the firm every year. And most of them, after a few years, move on elsewhere.
All by design, because the exit is part of the product too.
In strategic advisory, the term used is up or out: three years is the indicative interval. Within this window, you either advance or you leave. And most leave, because for the organisation, training someone who then exits costs less than keeping them on the payroll at a level where they are not progressing.
Similar models, with varying degrees of rigidity, exist in all professional organisations built as a pyramid.
Knowing this before you start is essential if you are to avoid the frustration of that difficult sense of stagnation. Because that is what it is: in certain organisations, the deciding factor is not the workload, the salary or the colleagues. Only time counts. Efficiency. Structure.
After three years, you are either in or out. And what you do during those three years of employment will not necessarily change things.
The consulting pyramid
The logic of the system
Before criticising the up or out model, you need to understand it. From the organisation’s point of view, there is no denying it is rational.
After all, the large consulting firms are – precisely – pyramids. Many juniors. Few partners. Without a mechanism that pushes out those who do not advance, the pyramid would risk flattening: the positions available for progression shrink and the middle tier tends to saturate. Turnover keeps this balance in motion. And the real cost of onboarding is, from this perspective, limited: after all, with an imminent reset in view, juniors are given narrowly defined tasks. You work at McKinsey, true, but what do you actually do there?
There is, then, something else to say. Those who leave such firms take with them skills, method, language and a very distinct professional identity, tied to the brand they come from. And in future, who knows. They might become an ambassador, a counterpart or a future client of the firm. The alumni network thus becomes an infrastructure of relationships (70,000 members to date) that continues to generate value even after departure. Resetting internal roles does not mean a clean break. Quite the opposite.
What the system cannot produce
This form of (so to speak) planned and structural obsolescence does, however, have a limit. And it is the flip side of what makes it so efficient: it offers fewer opportunities to take a decision, observe its consequences years later and return to correct it personally.
A-to-B work is designed to be carried out well within a defined timeframe. It offers no real opportunities: it does not foster real growth; if anything, it could be said to alienate the worker from the bigger picture. And this has an impact both on the company itself and on individual employees.
Then there is a kind of knowledge that only comes from continuity: understanding how a problem is tackled and, above all, how the solutions you chose to apply behave over time. It means seeing when a strategy that seemed right starts to show unexpected effects. This knowledge takes more than three years. But most will never develop it.
The frustration many feel in these systems has a name: the gap between what you are capable of doing and what you have the mandate to decide.
The system trains a great deal, but delegates little.
What the up or out model produces
What the system produces well
In three years, project by project
- A replicable working method and a shared language
- Reliable execution on well-defined assignments
- Credentials and recognition tied to the brand you come from
- A network of relationships that retains its value after departure
- A pyramid that stays in balance: turnover frees up the middle levels
What the system cannot produce
It takes more than three years, within the same scope
- Seeing the consequences of your own decision years later
- Personally correcting a strategy that has stopped working
- Understanding how the solutions adopted behave over time
- The mandate to decide, not just the ability to execute
- Responsibility for the full picture, beyond the single deliverable
The system trains a great deal, but delegates little.
The choice the system does not make for you
These models serve the objectives of the organisations that adopt them and, from that point of view, they work.
Those who work in these systems, however, must consciously make a choice the organisation cannot make for them: understanding what they are building for themselves, beyond the quality of the deliverables. What will remain when the three years are over and they move to another company? Which method, relationships, reputation or point of view will still be theirs?
Some people use these years to build a network, skills and credentials that then make something different possible. Others leave with the same technical skills and the feeling of having built someone else’s career. Or worse: of having wasted their time.
Using this system consciously is therefore crucial. You can adopt it and reap real benefits. Otherwise, you can look for a different solution: one geared towards continuity. A rarity, these days.
Domande frequenti
Is it worth joining these systems if you already know you will leave within three years?
It can be worth it when you join with a clear objective. Method, learning intensity, network and credentials can condense into a few years experiences that are hard to replicate elsewhere. The point is knowing what professional capital you want to accumulate before the cycle ends.
How do you build something irreplaceable in a context designed for replaceability?
Through what goes beyond the job description: relationships, depth of analysis, the ability to take a stance, understanding of a sector and memory of consequences. In a standardised system, personal value grows above all where the common method meets recognisable judgement.
Should a CEO prefer people with long tenure or with multiple experiences across different systems?
It depends on the role. Where institutional knowledge, continuity and internal relationships matter, long tenure can produce value that is hard to buy on the market. In strategic roles, exposure to multiple contexts can instead accelerate pattern recognition. The strongest teams combine both forms of experience and manage key person risk when too much knowledge remains concentrated in a single person.
Why does Bliss look at these organisational models?
Because the quality of decisions also depends on how an organisation retains, transfers and challenges knowledge. In Advisory and Governance engagements, the issue concerns roles, continuity, dependence on key people and management’s ability to build criteria that remain usable even when people change.