| Topic Name: |
McKinsey in decline? |
| Message Name: |
Comments |
| Date Posted: |
12/28/2005 |
| In Reply To: |
1. I would not worry so much about changes over the last few years or about comparison to other firms
a. I talked once with a 1970s era employee who had the same concerns as me in terms of the recommendations being skewed and the arguments/analyses having tendancy for tendentiousness vice logical examination.
b. The issue wrt growth/shrinking points out that the job has risks associated with recession. I would not put faith in blithe statements based on this year's practices
I would hope that less of this is going on then in teh past. And anyone who thinks that McK did not do layoffs but just "normal up or out" is drinking Kool-aid. Anyways, "normal up or out" was completely de-emphasized or minimized as an issue in 1999 in recruiting discussions. (commence with the ad hominem claims that I'm embittered here...:))
c. If you're going to do MC, it's still a damn good place to do it at. It's premier. Don't go to another firm unless you know strongly that you want to do a specialized industry or fuinction that is done better at other firms. Just realize that many of the (valid) criticisms of MC apply to McK as well. Here I mean things like point 1.a, lifestyle, etc. Not crap like expense padding or sweating the budget--that's a valid criticism for the IT shops, not McK.
2. From other people's comments: I think too much emphasis is made on "distinctive work" or even "impactful* work". It ends up being 50 cent word put on things that don't justify it often. There is a lack of hard-nosed, frank assessment of what does/doesn't justify such praise. Also, the tendancy to use opaque language or overblown consulting language contributes to a culture that does not pursue things to ground truth. In addition, often "distinctive" really means faddy, wrong, Lowell Bryant type work. Also, "being impactful" can drive teams to minimize doubt when making recommendations. There used to be a comment on the performance evals about the desirability of eschewing caveats.
I actually think that many "classic business situations are complex and that better issue analysis would be helpful to actually creating some economic value. As an example look at organizational work. There is a lot of classic work in this field that McK teams are blithely unaware of. In addition this is an area where there are distinct disadvantages of any scheme and where it is not just a matter of an Excel spreadsheet to calculate what is the best way to go. But I did not see teams pursue these issues thoughtfully. In general companies rearrange deck chairs periodically and thoughtlessly and McK plays into that tendancy.
3. I agree with the general concern that many of the top clients for McK went downhill badly while McK was "on the CEO agenda". Can't say the names, but it's most of the big bankruptcies of the last few years. (Aenecdotal) for the one who was McK's top client at that time, I was told by one of the CST that he felt that we were destroying value there. It's too bad because I think that McK could drive value if they just did good work. And the issue with destroying value is not McK's fees but flawed advice, contributing to agency effect, etc.
*hate that word
|
| Message: |
1. Love your point
2.
As you do, I hate the word "distinctive." It does not mean a thing, most of the time.
However, I do not have the feeling I ever did any "bad work" for the client. Once, and only once (3-4 weeks only), did I feel that I did something that the client could have done well internally.
Because we (meaning the teams I worked with... I cannot speak for the whole firm) do care to see the recommendation implemented successfully, we made sure that mid-level managers (those who will ultimately do the job) understood perefectly the recomandation and we worked with them on their short- : medium-term to-do list. So, as much as I agree with your comment on "opaque language" for written documents, I disagree with your implication that our work cannot work at "ground level."
Finally, your comment on McK people not being aware of "classic business situations", I also would tend to agree: that is the case for most MC firms. The question, therefore is: should McK hire more experienced managers? Should McK hire more MBAs (who, theoretically, have seen those situation in class)? Other?
My take here is that MC firm just cannot work on some client issues. Your example of Organization woul be one. How can an outside team help a manager decide how to best organise its company? I can see a seasoned Partner having a discussion with thte manager about this topic; I have a hard time imagining a team of 3 doing the same...
Overall, consultants add value when there is disperse information to be gathered (internally and externally) and synthesized, insights to be gained and communicated, and a recommendation / action plan to be articulated. When the key issue is one of mangmement style, culture, or internal organisation, I doubt any MC can add a lot of value (*).
3.
I think McK in particular, but also most of MC firms have a problem in deciding how they want to grow...
MC firms are more or less mono-poduct: they sell brainpower over a certain period of time (with the relevant knowledge). The only way to grow, therefore, is to gain more clients or sell more to the same clients. This prompts the problem, as discussed in this thread and others, of not working on "relevant" issues for the client but just selling studies to push up the number of billing hours, and / or to do studies that ultimately destroy value...
Then, maybe a solution to that problem is just to grow less rapidly... Stringer Up-or-out policy (e.g. for Partners) would helps make room for the promotion of younger folks, while helping the firm not grow so much. earning to say "No" to client would also help.
s.
(*) Though I do believe that a "coach" of some sort can be very hepful.
|
|
