MBB consulting and in-house strategy teams often walk into the same boardroom with very different badges. One has the global brand, the alumni network, and a hundred case studies from other clients. The other has the institutional memory, the political map, and the trust of the CEO who sees them every week. When the decision is genuinely hard, who actually tips the balance?

If you look closely at modern corporations, decision power is not simply “outsourced to McKinsey” or “kept inside.” It is negotiated: between MBB partners, internal strategy leads, line executives, and the board. In some companies, MBB Consulting still sets the agenda, frames the options, and provides the “answer.” In others, MBB is more like a specialist surgeon, brought in for one precise job while the internal team runs the patient’s long-term health.

This distinction matters because the consulting market is not a cottage industry anymore. Global management consulting services were worth roughly 467 billion dollars in 2024 and are projected to grow strongly toward the end of the decade. At the same time, internal capability centers and corporate strategy units have multiplied. Analysts estimate that more than 1,500 corporate capability centers now operate in India alone, serving as internal hubs for strategy, analytics, and transformation for multinationals. The tension between these two models is no longer theoretical. It is a budget line, a career path, and a political reality inside every large corporation.

So if you are an executive, investor, or operator around the table, the more interesting question is not “MBB or in-house.” It is: for which decisions, under what conditions, and with which power dynamics?

MBB Consulting as the Classic External Power Broker

For decades, the “default” image of strategy work in a large company has been a McKinsey or BCG team camped in a war room. MBB Consulting became the shorthand for seriousness. Board chairs, activist investors, and regulators recognized the logos. Alumni of these firms now sit in C-suites around the world; one analysis of large company leadership found that at least 17 Fortune 500 CEOs have McKinsey experience, with BCG and other top firms also heavily represented. That kind of alumni footprint turns an external advisor into something closer to a leadership tribe.

Why did that happen? First, MBB firms built an advantage in pattern recognition. A partner who has seen five telecom restructurings, three bank cost programs, and two consumer portfolio reviews can spot failure modes that internal teams will only encounter once in a career. That experience makes their recommendations feel less like theory and more like risk management, especially to boards that worry about downside far more than upside.

Second, MBB has historically been very good at optics. An “independent review” from McKinsey or Bain can give cover to a CEO who wants to close plants, cut headcount, exit a legacy business, or pivot away from a pet project that the founder still loves. Internally generated advice can feel politically loaded. Externally generated advice, even if it says the same thing, carries a perception of neutrality. That perception influences who really drives the decision.

Third, MBB teams often control the slide deck that becomes the single source of truth. When they own the model, the benchmarks, and the storyboard, they effectively curate which facts enter the conversation. In theory, the CEO can challenge anything. In practice, a time-pressed executive committee usually debates within the frame that the deck provides. “What are the branches on this decision tree?” is already an editorial choice.

Finally, MBB Consulting has operated as a talent funnel. Many internal strategy heads started in these firms. They speak the same language, trust the methods, and know which partners to call when the stakes are high. That creates a reinforcing power loop: MBB alumni in-house invite their former firms back for the moments that matter most.

So when a corporation announces a multi-billion portfolio reset, a zero-based budgeting exercise, or a global operating model redesign, it is still common to see MBB in the center of the room. Not because the internal team is absent, but because the politics, signaling, and scale of the change favor a high-prestige external actor.

The Rise of In-House Strategy: From Slide Recipients to Agenda Setters

The story looks very different inside companies that have invested in serious in-house strategy teams. Think of groups like Google’s BizOps, Siemens Advanta, or Samsung’s Global Strategy Group, which are explicitly positioned as internal consulting units. These teams recruit from the same MBA pools, use similar toolkits, and work directly with business unit leadership on projects that look identical to classic MBB work: growth strategy, pricing, restructuring, and M&A integration.

Why would a company choose to build that capability instead of sending everything to MBB? Cost is part of the answer. Consulting spend for large enterprises can sit around one to two percent of revenue, and episodic clients often spend roughly three percent of payroll on consulting each time they bring in a new firm. For a global corporation, that adds up to hundreds of millions per year. Once the problem types become repeatable, it is rational to convert some of that spend into internal headcount.

But the more important driver is control. Internal strategy teams sit inside the information flow. They see early drafts of budgets, they attend regular operating reviews, and they know which initiatives quietly died last year. That context allows them to define what goes on the CEO’s agenda, not just to respond to it. When they do their job well, they stop being the group that “implements consulting recommendations” and start being the group that shapes the questions in the first place.

In-house teams also move faster. They do not have to negotiate staffing, proposal terms, and work plans every time a new topic appears. A CEO can pull the head of corporate strategy into a corridor conversation on Monday and expect a rough answer by Friday without triggering a formal engagement. That speed becomes a competitive advantage when market conditions shift and the board expects options on the table by the next quarter.

Of course, internal teams have structural constraints. They are subject to the same politics and incentive structures as everyone else. Telling a powerful business unit leader that their flagship initiative should be shut down can be career-limiting if the CEO is not fully aligned. A partner from MBB Consulting, on the other hand, can absorb some of that friction and then move on to the next client.

There is also the question of variety. Internal strategists see the same company every day. Their depth is unmatched, but their external reference set can decay if the company stops funding regular external benchmarking or rotation into global roles. In-house teams that thrive usually do at least one of three things: they rotate talent from different regions and businesses, they keep a disciplined external network with peers and advisors, and they selectively co-source work with MBB or boutiques on topics where the company has little experience.

Still, the direction of travel is clear. Corporate strategy, internal consulting, and capability centers are no longer light support functions. In many firms they are becoming the primary engine of analytic work, with MBB brought in for specific phases rather than entire journeys.

Where MBB Consulting Still Wins: Board Optics, Transformations, and High-Stakes Bets

The rise of internal teams has not made MBB Consulting irrelevant. It has made the external mandate narrower and sharper. Rather than own every major question, MBB increasingly focuses on situations where its unique assets really matter.

One obvious category is board-facing work. When a company faces activist pressure, regulatory scrutiny, or a major public pivot, independent validation carries weight. A board that has to defend a restructuring or a “break up the company” decision to investors will often ask for a top-tier external review even if the internal team has already run the numbers. The external stamp does not change the intrinsic logic, but it materially changes the politics.

Another category is full-scale transformation. A global cost reset, a multi-country digital overhaul, or a major operating model redesign requires coordination across dozens of sites and functions. MBB firms still excel at orchestrating that complexity, in part because they can drop in experienced teams at scale and in part because they have reference cases from prior transformations across different industries. The global consulting market is expanding quickly, and a significant share of that growth sits in strategy, technology, and transformation projects where big firms still compete aggressively.

A third category is new territory. When a traditional industrial company moves into AI-driven services, or a bank enters embedded finance, or a retailer explores new geographies, internal teams may not yet have the playbook. In those situations it is rational to borrow patterns from specialists who have watched multiple firms take similar risks. Even here, however, MBB Consulting is facing pressure from AI-enabled boutiques that promise faster, cheaper diagnostics. MBB responds by combining human expertise with proprietary data, tools, and alliances, but the competitive field is less comfortable than it used to be.

You can frame the distinctive value of MBB in three simple comparisons:

• Authority with external stakeholders: boards, regulators, and investors interpret MBB endorsements and warnings as strong signals.
• Pattern depth across industries: partners carry detailed, recent experience from similar situations in other companies and markets.
• Execution infrastructure at scale: global staffing, tried-and-tested transformation offices, and codified tools still matter when a program spans continents.

These advantages do not mean MBB should lead every decision. They mean that when the stakes are existential, when the company is entering a new arena, or when external optics are as important as internal logic, MBB still has a structural edge over internal teams.

Hybrid Strategy Models: How Modern Corporations Blend MBB and Internal Talent

The most sophisticated companies no longer debate “MBB Consulting versus in-house.” They design hybrid models where each side does what it is best at.

In practice, that often looks like a layered approach. The internal strategy team shapes the initial problem, curates data, and builds a first pass on options. They know what is politically feasible, they understand the operational constraints, and they can see where the bodies are buried. When the topic rises to board level or reaches a turning point, MBB or another top-tier firm is brought in to stress-test the framing, contribute external pattern recognition, and help craft the narrative that will support the final decision.

In this model, the internal team is not junior to the consultant. They are the sponsor. They decide where external support adds real value and where it would simply duplicate analysis they already own. That sponsoring role also lets internal strategy leaders protect the company from overdependence. If the CEO asks, “Do we really need a full MBB team here,” the internal head of strategy can say yes, no, or “only for this slice” with credibility.

There are also cases where internal teams fully replace MBB for certain domains. Some companies use internal consulting groups as long-term partners for operations, pricing, and cross-functional change, while reserving MBB for portfolio strategy or large acquisitions. Others build internal analytics and AI centers that outperform generalist external teams on modeling, leaving MBB to focus on broader strategic questions.

Trends in the market support this tilt toward hybrid models. Analysts note a growing wave of internal capability centers and internal consulting units built specifically to reduce external spend, improve agility, and keep institutional knowledge inside the company. At the same time, digital and technology consulting segments continue to expand, since few companies can attract or retain all the cutting-edge talent they need in-house.

Who drives decisions in this hybrid setup? In theory, the CEO and board. In reality, influence flows to whoever frames the trade-offs in a way that feels both ambitious and safe. When internal teams are strong, they are the ones pre-wiring decision makers, socializing scenarios, and shaping what “good” looks like before any external slide shows up. When internal teams are underpowered or politically sidelined, MBB can still land in the building and quietly become the de facto strategy office for a period of time.

One subtle but important shift is happening as AI and data tools spread. External firms no longer own the analytics advantage by default. Internal teams can build their own data platforms, scenario engines, and experimentation frameworks. That erodes one of MBB’s historical moats and reinforces the idea that the external advisor is a specialist, not a permanent brain. The corporations that recognise this early are already redesigning how they use consulting: fewer “everything” programs, more targeted spikes.

So Who Really Drives Decisions?

If you walk into a modern strategy offsite expecting a clear winner between MBB Consulting and in-house strategy, you will be disappointed. Decisions in big companies are not made by logos. They are made by coalitions of people with different sources of power.

MBB still matters when the board needs a public signal, when the company is entering unfamiliar terrain, or when a transformation is so large that it demands external scaffolding. Internal strategy teams matter when context, speed, and political navigation determine whether a decision is accepted or quietly sabotaged six months later. The real story of modern corporate decision making is how those two groups interact.

For investors and executives, the smarter question is: have we built an internal strategy capability strong enough to sponsor external work, challenge it, and integrate it into day-to-day execution? If the answer is yes, MBB becomes a high-impact tool, not a crutch. If the answer is no, the organization is effectively outsourcing not just analysis, but judgment.

In a market where both consulting spend and internal capability centers are growing, the companies that win will be the ones that treat strategy capacity as an ecosystem. External advisers, in-house teams, operational leaders, and data platforms all have a seat at the table. The firms that still expect one brand to “do the strategy for them” are already behind.