Since 2017, we’ve been tracking the factors that clients consider when deciding which firms to shortlist for a given piece of work.  

This data doesn’t tell us how clients initially decide which firms to invite to pitch—that’s largely determined by the extent to which they associate a firm with the type of expertise required. It also doesn’t tell us why a firm is ultimately selected, as this usually comes down to very specific reasons around the team, their proposal, and their behaviour at key meetings. What it does tell us is how clients narrow down what can be a very wide range of potential suppliers into a small number of key contenders. 

Prior to 2020, the factors influencing this mid-stage decision were remarkably consistent. Innovation and the way in which firms approach their work (their “methodologies”) dominated. Then came the pandemic. Buying services and working with professional services firms on a remote—literally two-dimensional—basis turned clients’ thinking on its head. They started to focus far more of their attention on the one thing they could judge—the depth of a firm’s subject matter and sector expertise. Then, as one crisis turned into many, they also started to pay more attention to firms’ ability to implement and to be flexible, to respond to the almost inevitable changes in clients’ needs brought on by economic uncertainty. 

Before diving into our most recent data, we should point out that all the factors listed in the chart below are important to clients. None are unimportant. All clients think about all of them to some extent. However, ours is an index of relative importance: The factors at the top are more important than those at the bottom—and they’re also more likely to be the areas where clients see—or want to see—the greatest difference between firms.  

Focusing therefore on the top of our chart, the differences between the US markets and all the other markets we’ve analysed are striking—and new.  

The factors considered by clients outside the US in 2025 are broadly similar to the recent, post-pandemic picture, with expertise, the ability to implement, and responsiveness all topping the chart. US clients would agree about the overriding importance of subject matter expertise, and sector experience remains near the top, if not quite as highly rated as elsewhere in the world.  

But the second most important factor for US clients is a firm’s global reach, which has leapt from 15th position in 2024 to second, while remaining unchanged in other parts of the world. At the same time, the relative importance of thought leadership has also increased, from seventh last year to third today, while remaining constant in other countries.  

What’s driving this shift in the US? We think there are two important factors at work.  

Let’s start with thought leadership. All the research we’ve done over the last five years indicates that thought leadership becomes more important when clients are planning or undergoing significant change. Thought leadership is in some ways the continuation of strategy consulting by other means: The material consulting firms publish, which is trusted by clients whose inboxes are flooded with less credible content, is crucial not only in helping them understand future trends and how they should respond, but in aligning their leadership team around a common course of action. It’s hard to imagine a period in recent history that’s likely to drive more change than the here and now. Traumatic though it was, the corporate response to the pandemic was very clear; “it’s to keep the pilot light on,” as one senior executive put it at the time, “to protect our employees, our customers, and our business so that, when life returns to normal, we’re ready to go again.” Today, it’s not clear what client organisations should do. The real question here is why thought leadership hasn’t also shot up clients’ agenda elsewhere in the world. Perhaps there’s a degree of paralysis elsewhere, with organisations still blinking in the oncoming headlights, while their counterparts in the US are already jumping out of the way. If so, the mismatch is a question of timing, and thought leadership may soon become relatively more important to clients globally, too.  

The jump in the importance of global reach for US clients is, we’d argue, different. It seems likely that the relationship between US corporations and their overseas subsidiaries will become more difficult during President Trump’s administration. They may feel cut off from local markets and need more support understanding trends—and at a time when they need to make decisions about the location of production facilities and the shape of their supply chains. As regionalisation replaces globalisation, hard choices will need to be made about where to operate and executing those changes will become more difficult. US clients will therefore turn to consulting firms to advise and to help make things happen. This has happened before: Chinese companies have, for example, switched to using local firms in recent years in preference over Western-based ones, but most still use US-based consultants for US-based work, partly because of the obvious language barriers and partly because they need to tap into local knowledge. 

All this may well accelerate a change in the relationship between clients and consulting firms, with the boundaries of who does what shifting, and with consulting firms taking on greater, deeper executive responsibilities in the future.  

Deglobalisation will create a more global consulting industry. Ironic, really.

What can firms do next?

Source’s insights can help you shape your strategy. Our bespoke leadership briefings break down the most important trends and opportunities for firms, so you can understand what’s most important to clients and invest where it really matters. Get in touch to find out more.