| Topic Name: |
McKinsey in decline? |
| Message Name: |
interesting thread.. and my honest opinion |
| Date Posted: |
12/24/2005 |
| In Reply To: |
2003 Vault's McKinsey Info:
Total 11000 employed (~5500 consultants)
2003 Yahoo Finances McKinsey Info:
Total of 11500 employed (~5500 consultants)
http://finance.yahoo.com/search?type=&s=mckinsey&r=
March 2004 (could be data from 2003 but used in 2004?) McKinsey Recruiting Material:
Total consultants 5700, 83 offices
Fall 2005 McKinsey Recruiting Material:
Total consultants 6800, 83 offices
If data for Vault and Yahoo were 2003 spring data, and then number of consultants would have increased to ~6600 in the fall of 2003. In that case, the growth from 2003 to 2005 is 3%. However, in this analysis we are assuming that all of the attrition happens after year -end bonus in 2002.
If data for the Vault and Yahoo were 2003 fall data, then the growth of the Firm is 23% a year (5500 -> 6800). This analysis assumes that no attritions happen during the fall.
In both cases, the Firm is growing and the number of new offices opened is ~0 (Don't know exactly when Philly office opened)
My point in the original post was to illustrate that the "consulting mags" claim of McK headcounts falling and the Firm being diluted by opening of new offices is bogus.
---
Responce to noname007:
I'm an McK offeree for one of the Northeast Asia offices. I would like to hear your take on the question you asked me. I would imagine that the qualities you mentioned (leadership, empathy, development of other firm members, etc.) are qualities required to be elected partner at the Firm.
|
| Message: |
but i respectfully disagree with XTC and others that McKinsey is on the decline. now i dont know what happened 10 years back, but from what i can tell, i think the biggest problem we have today is that we are growing too fast. it creates three problems, when a firm like mckinsey grows this fast: (i) we have to recruit people who shouldnt be here, (ii) we have to do work (in order to sustain our $4B annual revenues) that we shouldnt be doing , (iii) so many new hires puts the "apprenticeship" model at risk. does that mean we arent doing cutting edge work? of course we are. does that mean we are not capable of delivering top class work? ofcourse we are very capable - we are at least as capable of BCG and Bain - in fact, I think we are more capable. does that mean our quality has deteriorated over time? i dont think so at all. does that mean if BCG and Bain have "caught up" with us? i dont think so either. they are both one fourth the size of mckinsey - really small compared to us. im sure we do more "prestigeous" and "cutting edge" work than BCG and Bain put together - but in order to sustain our size, we also do stuff that we really shouldnt be doing.
so should you take an offer with mckinsey - of course yes. should you choose mckinsey over BCG and Bain - i dont think there is much wrong you can do with either of these three, so im not going to give you wrong advice by saying that you should choode mckinsey - but i can assure you that you are definitely NOT worse off with mckinsey - better off, if at all.
my $0.02
|
|
