| Topic Name: |
McKinsey in decline? |
| Message Name: |
Distinctiveness and impact |
| Date Posted: |
12/27/2005 |
| In Reply To: |
but i have been involved with some work that has been interesting and beyond client capabilities. so im sure that mckinsey does "distinctive" work - but i dont think there is $4B a year of "distinctive" work to be done - so we do a lot of stuff that is not so interesting. even in cases when you think a client internal team could do it, its very doubtful that they could match our pace and the resources we bring in. im quite convinced of mckinsey's value proposition in the 4-8 week engagements - there is clear value in coming in, quickly ramping up and answering a difficult/strategic/critical question for a client and leaving. im not very convinced about the longer term involvements that stretch a few months to a year.
i have always said that everyone's experience at mckinsey is unique. i have seen quite a bit of the 4-8 week stuff and i find that we make a clear difference in those situations - that internal client teams couldnt do.
my $0.02 |
| Message: |
To comfort your point, I find it truly worrying to note that the longer McKinsey has been working with a client, the worse the performance of that client has become. This appears to be a "rule" that suffers a few "exceptions", but it is veryfiable in many countries.
Reason: with the increased emphasis on "getting more work" (oops, sorry, "developing the client"), McKinsey does less "truly distinctive" work, accepts to address issues that are not "top management level" and works wiht managers that are not the best at the clients served. All of this is then re-cycled in the "knowledge-building" merry-go-round and before you know it, second-class work has become "state of the art" in the McKinsey world.
More troubling is the impact this is having on the average quality of recruits and on the average quality of partners elected! But that is another discussion!
|
|
