Dernières publications

By Andy Klose - Associate Partner at Vencon Research in Berlin, Germany

Management consulting firms frequently face a critical challenge: balancing competitive partner compensation with sustainable growth and profitability. Many firms set their target on compensating partners at the market median but often fall short. This misalignment leads to partner dissatisfaction and increased pressure on leadership. Addressing the issue requires a strategic, data-driven approach that not only ensures fair compensation but also fosters performance-driven growth.

Performance and Financial Outcomes Are Interdependent

At its core, the challenge stems from a direct but complex link between partner compensation and firm profitability. Unlike salaried employees, partners derive their income largely from the firm’s profits, which in turn depend on their own ability to generate revenue and control costs. If partners underperform, firm-wide profitability suffers, making it financially unfeasible to pay them at target market levels. Therefore, increasing partner compensation requires a dual focus: boosting individual partner performance and improving overall firm profitability.

Understanding the Compensation Gap

Vencon Research regularly benchmarks partner compensation across consulting firms, comparing actual earnings to market norms and the firm’s target market percentile. A common scenario we come across involves consulting firms aspiring to pay their partners at the market median but operating closer to the 25th percentile (lower quartile). At the same time, these firms aim for ambitious double-digit revenue growth while maintaining or improving profitability.

A deeper analysis often reveals a fundamental issue: underperformance among partners, with a significant proportion failing to meet their sales targets. This raises an essential question: How can the firm enhance both partner compensation and financial sustainability?

Growth Strategies: Expanding Revenue Potential

To meet revenue growth targets, firms typically consider three strategic options:

1. Increase sales targets for existing partners: While raising revenue expectations seems like a logical solution, it is often impractical if partners are already struggling to meet current targets. Without structural changes, higher sales goals would likely intensify the firm’s revenue attainment challenges.
2. Increase the number of partners: Promoting internal talent or hiring externally can drive additional revenue. However, this approach is hindered if the firm’s partner compensation is not competitive, making it difficult to attract and retain top talent.
3. Pursue “inorganic” growth: Acquiring smaller consulting firms can provide an immediate revenue boost, assuming the financial backing is available. Yet, without addressing underlying performance and profitability issues, mergers and acquisitions merely delay—but do not solve—the fundamental problem.

Given these challenges, what practical steps can firms take to improve both financial performance and partner satisfaction?

Rethinking Partner Compensation: Pay-for-Performance

While increasing partner pay to the target market percentile is a straightforward solution, it is rarely feasible without increasing profitability. Unlike consultant levels (below partner), where competitive compensation is often mandatory to reduce attrition, partner pay must align with contributions to the firm’s financial health.

Most consulting firms adopt a meritocratic “pay-for-performance” model. To ensure consistency, we advocate for a structured approach that integrates profit, goals, and pay within defined frameworks such as partner levels or career groups. This approach, which we refer to as the Trinity Model, links partner compensation directly to revenue and profit contributions.

Addressing Partner Underperformance

One of the key hurdles to increasing partner compensation is underperformance. Firms must take a systematic approach to improve productivity and effectiveness at the partner level. A crucial first step is conducting a book of business review to assess individual contributions and identify areas for growth. Additionally, firms should evaluate:

• Role clarity and expectations: Many underperforming partners prioritize project delivery over business development. Clarifying expectations through role definitions and accountability frameworks is essential.
• Training and development: Equipping partners with business development skills can enhance revenue generation capabilities.
• Structural realignment: Refining the firm’s partner model, including job descriptions and performance benchmarks, ensures a stronger alignment between roles and firm strategy.

Improving Profitability to Sustain Growth

Beyond individual partner performance, firms should optimize their broader business structure to enhance profitability. Key areas for evaluation include:

• Project team composition: Ensuring an optimal balance of senior and junior consulting staff improves cost efficiency.
• Firm-wide organizational structure: Adjusting the overall staffing pyramid and staff-to-partner ratios can drive margin improvements.
• Operational efficiency: Identifying cost-saving measures and optimizing service delivery models contribute to higher profits.

By strengthening both individual performance and overall firm profitability, consulting firms can create a sustainable foundation for increasing partner compensation.

A Holistic Approach to Sustainable Growth

Aligning partner compensation with market expectations requires a holistic strategy that addresses both revenue generation and profitability. By improving partner performance, optimizing the firm’s organizational structure, and reinforcing a merit-based pay model, consulting firms can create a sustainable path toward higher earnings and growth.

Additionally, enhancing compensation competitiveness will improve the firm’s ability to attract top-tier partner candidates, further accelerating growth. In the long run, improved profitability may also open doors for external financing, enabling both organic and inorganic expansion.

Ultimately, firms that successfully integrate these elements will be well-positioned to achieve their financial targets while ensuring partner satisfaction and long-term success.

We would be pleased to assist you with any additional inquiries and provide recommendations to enhance performance and financial sustainability in your organization. Contact us to learn more.

Andy Klose is an Associate Partner at Vencon Research International and heads the firm’s consulting unit.

Vencon Research International is a leading provider of compensation benchmarking and research as well as of compensation and performance-related consulting services for professional service firms, especially for audit and tax, management consulting, and IT services firms. Vencon Research International provides services to a full range of clients in more than 75 countries worldwide and is proud to name more than 85% of the world’s major consulting and/or professional services firm its clients.

‍

By Veronika von Strachwitz-Camara - Business Development Senior Manager

While cash compensation often takes centre stage in compensation benchmarking, benefits play an equally important role in attracting and retaining talent.

In the consulting industry, where competition for skilled professionals is intense, offering a robust and relevant benefits package can be a decisive factor for employees at every career stage. Here's a closer look at why consulting firms should prioritize benchmarking their benefits.

Understanding Benefits: More Than "Fringe"

Benefits encompass a wide array of offerings, both cash-related and non-cash-related. These can be categorized into:

1. Hard Benefits: Tangible offerings with direct financial value, such as healthcare, life insurance, retirement contributions, and car allowances.
2. Soft Benefits: Non-financial perks that improve work-life balance or enhance the workplace experience, including vacation days, sabbaticals, parental leave, professional development support, and flexible work arrangements.

Both types of benefits are essential, but their significance varies with employee preferences, career stage, industry trends, and market specifics. Early-career employees often value immediate financial perks like healthcare and allowances, while experienced professionals prioritize retirement plans and security. Regional differences also play a critical role; for example, countries with limited public services require robust private benefits, while flexible work policies are highly valued in regions where work-life balance has become a cultural norm. Consulting firms must adapt their offerings to align with global trends, local market demands, and the diverse needs of their workforce to stay competitive.

The Case for Benchmarking Benefits

By regularly evaluating and aligning their offerings, firms can remain competitive, adapt to evolving trends, and meet the diverse needs of their workforce.

Here are ten compelling reasons consulting firms should prioritize benefits benchmarking:

1. Attract and Retain Top Talent

Consulting firms face fierce competition for highly skilled professionals. To stand out, they must offer benefits packages that align with what employees value most.

• New Hires: Often prioritize hard benefits due to their tangible nature.
• Tenured Employees: Place greater emphasis on security-related benefits like health coverage and retirement planning.

2. Ensure Competitiveness

Benchmarking ensures consulting firms stay competitive by understanding how their benefits compare to industry standards.

• Market Positioning: While some firms aim to offer benefits at the market average, others—especially top-tier strategy consultancies—strive to lead the market to gain a distinct edge.

3. Stay Aligned with Market Trends

Regular benchmarking helps firms adapt to emerging trends. Some notable examples include:

• Unlimited Vacation Policies (popular in the US and UK).
• Fertility Treatments as part of health benefits.
• General Mobility Allowances for eco-friendly commuting options.

Adopting forward-thinking benefits also enhances a firm's image as modern and employee-focused.

4. Support Work-Life Balance

Consulting is demanding, often involving long hours and frequent travel. Benefits like mental health support, remote work options, and sabbaticals are increasingly valued. Ultimately, a healthy work-life balance is an essential driver of sustainable productivity.

• Generational Shift: Younger employees tend to prioritize work-life balance over traditional markers of success like salary or status, focusing on vacation days, sabbaticals, and team-building events.

5. Optimize Cost-Effectiveness

Benchmarking helps firms allocate resources wisely:

• Identify underutilized benefits and redirect funds to those with higher perceived value.
• Avoid overinvesting in trendy but low-impact perks while ensuring sought-after benefits are covered.

6. Address Demographic Shifts

• Retirement Security: With decreasing public pension guarantees, private retirement options are critical for employees at all stages.
• Health Insurance: A robust health plan is increasingly vital as public offerings shrink in many markets.

7. Foster a Modern Workplace Culture

Younger professionals are drawn to firms with:

• Considered Workspaces: Well-designed offices, collaborative environments, and wide-ranging amenities.
• Social Perks: Team-building events and activities that foster camaraderie.

Maintaining a balance between traditional benefits and modern workplace culture is a challenge but critical to success.

8. Regional Considerations

Different regions have unique needs that must be addressed when structuring benefits. For example:

• In the US, where public benefits are minimal, firms must offer comprehensive private packages to ensure employees have adequate coverage.
• In GCC countries, benefits packages often need to reflect expectations around allowances, housing, and even child education, making it important to understand these specific regional requirements.

9. Legal Requirements

Benchmarking benefits can help firms navigate local legal frameworks, ensuring compliance with labour laws and industry standards.

• For companies opening offices in new regions, detailed benefits reports are invaluable to understand local legal obligations and competitor offerings.
• This ensures firms structure benefits packages that meet regulatory requirements while staying competitive in the local market.

10. Encourage Innovation in Benefits Strategy

Analysing competitors' offerings can inspire innovative, cost-effective solutions that resonate with employees. Benchmarking may also highlight gaps or strengths in current offerings, equipping HR teams with data to better communicate benefits' value to employees.

The Vencon Research Approach

Benchmarking benefits is not just about staying competitive; it’s about understanding and responding to what employees truly value. For consulting firms, this translates to happier, more engaged teams and a stronger position in the talent market. By leveraging detailed insights from Vencon Research, firms can craft benefits packages that deliver value for both employees and the business.

Vencon Research specializes in compensation and benefits benchmarking for consulting firms. Our Benefits Reports are tailored to the consulting industry, offering:

• Detailed market insights.
• Up-to-date trends and legal requirements.
• Customized solutions for specific regions or firm needs.

Available as off-the-shelf or bespoke reports, they provide the comprehensive data consulting firms need to stay competitive in a rapidly evolving landscape.

‍

By Andy Klose - Associate Partner

Designing and defining partner compensation within consulting companies can be challenging, but the Trinity Model proposed here offers a clear solution.

By following this model, companies can confidently institute effective partner compensation to achieve the best outcome for all stakeholders. This model emphasizes the interconnectedness of profit, goals, and pay in shaping partner compensation, ensuring alignment with organizational objectives.

Understanding the Trinity Model

Vencon Research’s Trinity Model for Partner Compensation design is based on three fundamental pillars: profit, goals, and pay (Exhibit 1):

These elements are not discrete elements but are interwoven, shaping the trajectory of partner compensation within consulting firms.

1. Profit: Profitability, in its broadest sense, serves as the cornerstone of the Trinity Model. It encompasses various factors such as geographical location, business segment, industry dynamics, and operational models, delineating the profit potential of a company, service line, or consulting project.
2. Goals: Central to the Trinity Model are the objectives or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) set for partners. These encompass tangible metrics like sales targets, revenue goals, contribution margins, and profitability thresholds, defining the expected outcomes from individual or team contributions.
3. Pay: The compensation offered to partners is the tangible expression of their contributions and achievements within the organization. While market competitiveness is essential, equitable compensation that aligns with individual contributions is equally crucial for fostering a culture of fairness and performance.

Harmonizing the Trinity

The Trinity Model demonstrates structural cohesion by linking profit, goals, and pay within defined frameworks such as partner levels or career groups. Unlike traditional career progression paradigms, partner levels in this model are based on competency and performance rather than a linear upward trajectory.

In practice, changing one element of the Trinity requires corresponding adjustments to maintain balance. For instance, modifying compensation without aligning goals can cause conflict within the system. Therefore, it is crucial to synchronize all three elements to avoid any potential issues.

The following example should highlight these interrelations: Consider a scenario where a consulting company is striving to achieve ambitious growth goals by increasing revenue. This can be implemented by setting higher revenue goals for the firm’s partners. Profitability is typically defined by the types of clients served or the type of advisory work offered and is often less flexible. In this example, it is a fixed element. So, increasing partners’ revenue goals without adjusting their pay (potential) will eventually lead to an imbalance. Partners can increase their income by achieving higher revenue or profit goals and making other contributions. However, for career levels below partner, pay may also be significantly influenced by inflation and other factors.

In essence, the example highlights the imperative of harmonizing profit, goals, and pay to maintain balance within the compensation structure. By aligning compensation with organizational objectives, companies can ensure that incentives are calibrated to drive desired outcomes, fostering a culture of accountability and performance at all levels of the organization.

Moving Beyond Benchmarking

Regular benchmarking of pay against relevant peers provides valuable market insights when reviewing pay practices and market positioning. However, some consulting companies, such as those with a more meritocratic pay approach (“pay for performance”) may need to add a second step to the benchmarking exercise, particularly when reviewing Partner pay in relation to performance metrics. Such companies may wish to consider additional factors beyond pay benchmarking to ensure coherence within the Trinity Model and achieve a more holistic alignment across all elements.

Incorporating ESG Considerations

In an era marked by heightened awareness of environmental, social, and governance issues, consulting companies should be encouraged to incorporate ESG considerations into Partner performance assessments and incentives. By doing so, companies can promote a culture that values responsible management, and strive for sustainable value creation over the long term. This holistic approach not only aligns with societal expectations but also enhances the company's reputation and competitive advantage in an increasingly ESG-conscious business environment. This expansion of the Trinity Model to include ESG elements will be covered in a follow-up piece to this article.

Balance & Interdependence for Success

Achieving balance in partner compensation is important for creating a culture of performance, fairness, and sustainability in consulting companies. By acknowledging the interdependence of profit, goals, and pay, and incorporating emerging ESG considerations, firms can implement partner compensation strategies with confidence and foresight.

We would be pleased to assist you with any additional inquiries you may have and offer recommendations on how to enhance partner compensation for your organisation.

Andy Klose is an Associate Partner at Vencon Research International and heads the firm’s consulting unit.

Vencon Research International is a leading provider of compensation benchmarking and research as well as of compensation and performance-related consulting services for professional service firms, especially for audit and tax, management consulting, and IT services firms. Vencon Research International provides services to a full range of clients in more than 75 countries worldwide and is proud to name more than 85% of the world’s major consulting and/or professional services firm its clients.

By Andy Klose - Associate Partner

The rise of remote work after the COVID-19 pandemic has led to discussions among consulting firms about how to adjust pay for remote employees. This article explores the complexities of compensation strategies for remote work, including different pay models, remote work policies, and long-term perspectives within the consulting industry.

Exploring Pay Strategies

The question of whether consulting companies employ different pay strategies for their remote employees is a common one. To address this, we must first consider the various pay strategies employed by consulting firms (there are other as well as hybrid strategies in place):

1. Employee location-based pay: In this approach, companies adjust salaries based on the cost of living in the employee’s location (which often applies also to remote employees). This ensures equitable compensation, with higher salaries in high-cost areas such as San Francisco.
2. Office location-based pay: Some companies base employee salaries on the location of their offices, considering the local cost of labour which is not only driven by cost of living but also by talent supply and demand.
3. Country-based Pay: Another strategy is to set salaries based on a national average or maintain consistent pay across all locations in the country. While straightforward to implement and to maintain consistency across the organization, this approach may not account for regional cost-of-living differences.

Given these pay strategies, companies with employee location-based pay strategies are less likely to differentiate pay for remote employees. Conversely, those with office location-based or country-based pay strategies may be more inclined to do so.

Remote Work Policies

Furthermore, the diversity of remote work policies further complicates the issue (there are other as well as hybrid policies in place):

1. Fully remote: Some companies allow employees to work entirely remotely.
2. Hybrid remote: Many companies offer a blend, where employees work remotely part-time and attend office meetings or collaborations as needed.
3. Remote-friendly: Others permit remote work on an as-needed basis or with managerial approval.

Therefore, companies that have fully remote or hybrid remote work policies are less likely to differentiate pay for remote employees. This means that companies with remote-friendly policies seem to be more likely to consider different pay to their remote employees.

Long-Term View on Remote Work Policies

Additionally, consulting companies’ long-term view on remote work policies vary:

1. For remote work: Advocating for remote work indefinitely, some firms commit to embracing its advantages.
2. Against remote work: Conversely, other companies aim to return to pre-pandemic office norms, underscoring e.g. the value of in-person interactions.
3. Undecided: Certain companies are struggling with the decision of whether to continue remote work or return to the office. They recognize the challenges of reversing current remote work trends or are unsure about the potential benefits, such as increased efficiency.

Only firms in the first category, which are for remote work, are likely to consider pay differences for their remote employees. The other two groups are less likely to do so due to a possible transition.

Conclusion

All in all, most consulting companies remain hesitant to implement different pay strategies for their remote employees due to strategic and ethical considerations:

1. Strategic considerations: Companies typically choose office locations strategically, independent of individual employee locations, to achieve business metrics like revenue and margin. Thus, business outcomes remain unaffected by remote work. For example: A consulting company will charge the same billing rate to a bank in Manhattan regardless whether the consultant will be working in the New York office or remotely.
2. Misusing financial leverage: Paying remote employees less could be seen as an attempt to force them to return to the office. Transparent communication about the reasons for this request would be more effective.
3. Efficiency evidence: There is little or conflicting evidence (depending on the sources) that a full return to the office improves long-term employee efficiency.

In summary, creating suitable payment strategies for remote work requires thoughtful consideration and customised solutions. If you and your team require assistance, we are ready to provide support and expertise. Our aim is to ensure that your compensation approach aligns with your organisational goals while promoting fairness, engagement, employee satisfaction, and productivity.

Andy Klose is an Associate Partner at Vencon Research International and heads the company’s consulting unit.

Vencon Research International is a leading provider of compensation benchmarking and research as well as of compensation and performance-related consulting services for professional service firms, especially for audit and tax, management consulting, and IT services firms. Vencon Research International provides services to a full range of clients in more than 75 countries worldwide and is proud to name more than 85% of the world’s major consulting and/or professional services firm its clients.

‍

By Philip Thomas - Advisory

Benchmarking for partners in the consulting industry is crucial as it ensures that their compensation aligns with their unique leadership roles, individual contributions, and the overall strategic success of the firm, acknowledging the distinct and multifaceted nature of partner responsibilities; however, the inherent complexity often makes partner surveys less common compared to their more standardized consultant counterparts.

Unique requirements for benchmarking partners

Robust and meaningful partner compensation benchmarking surveys require significant amounts of work and inevitably entail a large number of complex variables, encompassing various forms of current and deferred income, while taking account of individual performance metrics, market dynamics, tenure, and specific contributions to the partnership.

Broadly speaking, accuracy in view of all these considerations rests on three key pillars:

• Job Matching
• Total Income
• Firm Selection

While each of these can be considered a separate discipline or area of expertise, similarities lie in a shared requirement for solid logical foundations, deep knowledge of and experience with the market, and defined and appropriate methodologies.

Should any one of the three pillars fail, the resultant compensation report would not be robust or meaningful.

Let’s take a look at the three key pillars in more detail:

Job Matching

Generally speaking, the more value that a partner adds to their firm the more income that they can expect in return.

It is therefore essential to understand the value added to a firm in order to job match appropriately.

Vencon Research’s approach utilises a generic framework to match client levels to other directly comparable levels in the market. Comparability is determined based on detailed consideration of a variety of relevant information (as applicable) including but not limited to:

• Job titles
• Job descriptions
• Defined roles and responsibilities
• Function, industry, service line and practice responsibility
• Geographical responsibility
• Sales revenue generation
• Deliver revenue responsibility
• Managed revenue responsibility
• Span of control
• Utilisation rates
• Strategic involvement

Total Income

Firms often take very different strategic approaches with respect to the types and sizes of remuneration components that they offer their partners. Firm structure dictates to an extent what is or is not possible, however, even between firms of comparable structure we often see bespoke and unique approaches.

It is therefore crucial to gain deep understanding of the ins and outs of each firm’s remuneration package in order to be able to determine the correct income data. Along with the raw income data, Vencon gathers extensive information about firm structure, remuneration packages and the individual components.

In simple terms, Vencon Research’s approach ensures:

• Inclusion of all income that should be included.
• Exclusion of any income that shouldn’t be included.
• That any included income is included in a like-for-like manner.

Firm Selection

Benchmarking surveys compare one data set (client data) to a market data set based on a selected list of relevant competitors. If the market data was based on an unspecified list, it would not be possible for the client to make sound judgements or decide upon the right corrective action.

Given the highly sensitive nature of partner data, Vencon Research’s Partner Compensation reports are anonymous, i.e. the market firms are not named. However, key criteria about each firm is provided so that clients are able to make suitably informed decisions and select appropriate competitors.

In brief, while ensuring each participating firm’s anonymity, Vencon Research indicates the following for each selectable market firm:

·         Firm Type (original firm focus, e.g. Operations-based or Pure Strategy)

·         Firm size in terms of firm revenue

·         Firm size in terms of number of Consultants

·         Revenue per Consultant

·         International presence (countries located in)

·         Scope of different industries served

·         Scope of services/functions offered

Vencon Research’s detailed and committed approach to data gathering, data analysis, data clarification and data management ensures that the three key pillars stay standing which in turn results in robust and meaningful Partner Compensation Benchmarking Surveys.

For further information on our Partner, or other benchmarking surveys, visit our website, or get in touch to arrange a consultation.

By Philip Thomas - Advisory

The answer could very well depend on who you ask.

With a number of major and mid-size consulting firms recently electing to evolve from traditional partnerships into corporations, debates on the pros and cons of such a move abound. The switch to corporate structure is seen as controversial, if not ill-advised, by many, yet touted as a path to significant growth and shared success by others.

Firms which continue to employ the partnership model will undoubtedly have keen eyes on how firms undertaking the transition develop, while some may even be persuaded into rethinking their own structures.

Below, we take a look at some of the major pros and cons for consulting firms considering the switch to corporation from a traditional partnership.

What are the potential benefits of changing from a traditional partnership to a corporation?

A change to a corporation could stand to benefit a firm, existing partners, entire workforces and future employees in a variety of ways including:

For the firm:

• Tax advantages.
• Possibility of additional capital for investments in growth and other investments, e.g. in Know-How.
• Additional financial flexibility.
• Efficient governance, e.g. allowing leaders to make difficult proactive decisions that otherwise may previously have been held off by the partner collective.
• Attractive means of enticing elite talent to join.
• A chance to realign retirement funding.

For the existing partners:

• Cashing in now, i.e. by selling portions of shares (especially advantageous for the more senior partners).
• Retaining influence.
• Reduction in legal requirements and administration.
• Preservation of limited legal liability.

For the entire workforce including future employees:

• Everyone has the chance to benefit from the firm’s success.
• The best talent will be in a position to benefit early.
• Working together under a ‘one company’ philosophy.

What are the potential drawbacks of changing from a traditional partnership to a corporation?

The prospect of changing from a traditional partnership to a corporation introduces of number of potential drawbacks, including:

• The risks of changing an already advantageous situation. Proven performance, continued growth and the longevity of the traditional partnerships should not be undervalued.
• Losing one of the key drivers of success, that being the enviable partner pay that results from equity-owned or profit-sharing.
• Adding new complexities and fear into the mix. Significant change itself is understandably daunting and often goes hand in hand with doubt and infighting. Not all people and groups deal with change well.
• Dropping a culture and mindset that may be desired by the current workforce. Many of those at the traditional partnerships chose to be there with reasonable knowledge of the existing structure. They may well not wish to work under an alternative structure.
• If the firm goes public, there will be a subsequent increase in administration.

There are also legitimate concerns around the opportunities for additional capital

Additional borrowing or private equity investment are not strictly speaking necessary in order to change to a corporation, however more often than not the opportunity to do so is a driving factor in the move. While the benefits of extra capital are easily deduced, the process can also bring detrimental effects. The concerns here are as follows:

For the taking on of debt:

• Taking on debt is, by its nature, almost always a controversial and divisive topic that may lead to fierce debate among stakeholders.
• Owed money must be paid by the firm (and therefore effectively by employees) at some point.
• Perceptions that existing partners, especially the most senior, are set to cash while other staff are left out.
• May create some level of suspicion and distrust within the firm.
• The firm’s next leadership teams could well feel hard done by leading to high attrition.

For a private equity investment:

• Relinquishing full control of the firm’s strategic direction.
• A period of difficult transition that may lead to dissatisfaction among employees.
• Uncertainty over whether the investors are the right group for the firm in the long-term.
• Financial implications of the new model for the existing workforce.

Time will tell

The change to a corporation could be the catalyst that some firms need in order to step-up and begin to significantly disrupt the status quo in their respective markets. The move is forward thinking, proactive rather than reactive, and bold. It could also find itself aligning neatly with the motivations, ethics and culture of the new generations of workforce.

However, there are clearly legitimate concerns and potential drawbacks that need to be appreciated and taken into consideration. These worries are only heightened when the burden of significant debt is part of the package.

With the pioneers of this transition still at the beginning of their new journey, a final verdict on the overall benefits of a change from a traditional partnership to a corporation will take time to reach. In the meantime, competitors will be keenly watching to see whether recent examples light the way or serve as a warning.

Vencon Research International is a leading provider of compensation benchmarking and research as well as of compensation and performance-related consulting services for professional service firms, especially for audit and tax, management consulting, and IT services firms. Vencon Research International provides services to a full range of clients in more than 75 countries worldwide and is proud to name more than 85% of the world’s major consulting and/or professional services firm its clients.

‍