Between 2023 and 2025, U.S. professional services firms have reduced entry-level hiring and slowed senior promotions while adopting AI tools that automate traditional junior tasks. For example, McKinsey’s partner promotions fell from 400+ in 2021 to ~200 in 2024, and Morgan Stanley’s managing director class declined over 20% from 2022 to 2024. The implication: AI-driven “synthetic leverage” may preserve margins while weakening long-term leadership pipelines.
1. Is the Apprenticeship Layer in U.S. Professional Services Actually Contracting?
Yes. Between 2023 and 2025, multiple U.S. professional services sectors show simultaneous reductions in entry-level intake and senior promotions, coinciding with AI-driven productivity adoption.
For decades, U.S. professional services firms followed a structural model: hire broadly at the entry level, promote selectively over time, and rely on repetitive, supervised work to build future leaders. The current data suggests that this apprenticeship layer is compressing at both ends.
In consulting, McKinsey reduced partner promotions from more than 400 in 2021 to roughly 200 in 2024, despite overall headcount growth during the pandemic expansion. Industry analysts report that entry-level hiring across McKinsey, Bain, and BCG has slowed materially from 2021–2022 peaks, reducing the size of incoming junior cohorts.
In U.S. investment banking, promotion tightening is visible at senior levels. Morgan Stanley’s managing director class declined more than 20 percent between 2022 and 2024. Goldman Sachs reportedly reduced vice president promotions by roughly one-fifth in 2025, while extending analyst-to-associate promotion timelines. A senior executive at Deutsche Bank summarized a common automation rationale: “The easy idea is you just replace juniors with an AI tool.”
In U.S. accounting, Big Four firms reduced graduate hiring and slowed equity partner admissions while maintaining or increasing per-partner payouts. Firms introduced non-equity partner and managing director tiers to retain senior professionals without expanding the equity pool. This structural adjustment results in fewer entrants at the base and fewer admissions at the top.
In U.S. law firms, average summer associate class sizes have fallen to some of the lowest levels in decades. At the same time, lateral partner and associate hiring has increased, indicating a shift toward acquiring mid-level experience externally rather than developing it internally.
Executives have explicitly linked these decisions to AI productivity. At JPMorgan Chase, leadership has described a “strong bias” against reflexively hiring additional staff due to AI-enabled productivity gains. Internal tools can now generate pitch materials in seconds that historically required hours of junior analyst work, prompting internal discussions about how apprenticeship models in banking may change.
Across sectors, three concurrent trends are observable between 2023 and 2025:
Reduced entry-level intake.
Slower promotion at senior gates.
Increased reliance on lateral mid-career hires.
Historically, apprenticeship was embedded in operating workflow rather than designed by learning functions. If AI removes the workflow layer that produced experiential reps, responsibility for reconstructing that development architecture shifts, implicitly or explicitly, to L&D and talent leaders.
This pattern differs from prior cyclical downturns, where firms temporarily reduced hiring but preserved the long-term pyramid structure. The current compression coincides with automation of the repetitive tasks that traditionally trained junior professionals.
The forward-looking risk is probabilistic rather than certain: if cohorts entering between 2023 and 2025 are smaller and complete fewer experiential repetitions, leadership bench depth in five to ten years may be thinner than under prior models.
2. Why Does AI-Driven Compression Threaten the Economics of the Traditional Leverage Model?
AI threatens not only hiring levels but the economic and developmental logic of the traditional leverage model.
U.S. professional services firms historically operated on a leverage-based profitability model articulated by David Maister. In this model, income per partner is a function of leverage (staff-to-partner ratio), utilization, billing rates, realization, and margin. Leverage, defined as the ratio of junior staff to equity partners, has been the primary driver of profit expansion.
The economics are well established:
In law, the “rule of three” holds that a non-partner timekeeper should generate approximately three times their compensation cost: one-third salary, one-third overhead, one-third profit.
In consulting and accounting, staff-to-partner ratios of 10:1 or higher are common.
Continue reading with a paid subscription to Learning & Development Executive Intelligence
Get access to this post and other subscriber-only content.
UpgradeA paid subscription gives you access to:
- Weekly digests covering high-priority developments shaping Learning and Development strategy, operations, and leadership.
- Weekly in-depth analysis of breaking developments and emerging industry trends, examining their implications, risks, and strategic considerations for L&D leaders.
- Deeper analysis and decision-support on policy and funding, AI disruption to career ladders, international mobility, micro-credentials, etc.