You're calling out a correlation, not a cause and effect.
Companies that are growing quickly, money coming, happy investors, don't hire McKinsey to make drastic changes to the company. They don't need to.
Companies who aren't growing, money is a problem, and investors are asking "what the fuck"? Hire consultants to make major changes.
It's similar to companies that go into bankruptcy. They often hire CEOs that are skilled in winding down operations, selling off parts, taking the company through bankruptcy. Someone needs to do that, it's not simple or easy to do well, so they are very well compensated. Then people complain why this CEO go a bonus when the company is filing for bankruptcy.
When a company goes into bankruptcy, they still have assets (inventory, a brand, real estate, customer contracts) -- those things just belong to their creditors now. The new owners need _someone_ to manage selling all those things to recoup some money.
More often, though, the business is still worth more than the sum of its parts. It just wasn't making enough to pay the loans it'd taken out. Since the loans get eliminated in bankruptcy, the new owners might decide to just keep running the company (and want a new CEO, who they think will do a better job.
Companies that are growing quickly, money coming, happy investors, don't hire McKinsey to make drastic changes to the company. They don't need to.
Companies who aren't growing, money is a problem, and investors are asking "what the fuck"? Hire consultants to make major changes.
It's similar to companies that go into bankruptcy. They often hire CEOs that are skilled in winding down operations, selling off parts, taking the company through bankruptcy. Someone needs to do that, it's not simple or easy to do well, so they are very well compensated. Then people complain why this CEO go a bonus when the company is filing for bankruptcy.