Up-or-Out Culture Disguised as Collegiality: Despite what leadership and recruiters will tell you, Kearney absolutely operates with an up-or-out model. Of the six associates who started with me, all six were gone within three years—and all but one not by choice. If you’re not actively being pushed out, reasons will be manufactured to make that happen.
Toxic Internal Politics: On multiple occasions, I experienced (and heard from others about) inconsistent feedback that shifted 180 degrees when it came time for formal performance reviews. One principal in particular praised my work throughout the engagement, only to completely reverse course when evaluations came up. A peer later told me they experienced the exact same thing with this principal. This is not an isolated incident—political games are common, and leadership either can’t or won’t intervene.
Sabotage and Withholding Information: On another project, a peer who was the sole point of contact with the principal purposely withheld deadlines from me—then used that to position me as underperforming.
Blame Always Flows Downhill: When a client expressed dissatisfaction with our approach on a project, was the manager held accountable? Of course not. The blame landed squarely on the associate (me). Accountability is rarely aligned with actual responsibility.
Lack of Real Training: Kearney claims to invest in developing consultants, but structured training is nearly nonexistent. Most teams are remote and disengaged from onboarding or supporting new joiners. You’re expected to learn through osmosis—if you’re lucky.
False Advertising During Recruiting: I joined Kearney after pausing interviews at other firms, largely because I believed the story that they don’t follow a typical up-or-out model and that the culture was more supportive. That was a huge mistake. My experience proved otherwise, and I regret not continuing my search for a better fit.
