| Topic Name: |
McKinsey in decline? |
| Message Name: |
MCK IS OVERRATED |
| Date Posted: |
12/28/2005 |
| In Reply To: |
I have an outstanding offer with McKinsey. At a recruiting event someone from another firm told me that McKinsey was losing talent in a rapid brain drain. They quoted an article in a consulting magazine that said that growth had slowed from the heady pre-2002 period (is the firm now shrinking?), that headcount had fallen strongly (attrition increasingly both to other consultants as well as other businesses) and that the culture had become significantly diluted by both new offices as well as a higher consultant to partner ratio. McK has always attracted me as the ultimate brand name to put on my CV, but this made me worried in a whole host of ways. Any views out there from McK or others?
|
| Message: |
The article you mention is dead-on accurate -- perception is finally catching up with reality! I worked in MC for 4 years (in one of the "m/b/b") and let me tell you that this obsession w/ Mck is completely confined to bschools and the Vault board. The Mck mystique might have been somewhat justified in the 80s and 90s, but today, most F500 execs barely distinguish among the top 6-7 firms (m/b/b/bah/mon/marak).
"Strategy consulting" is a term only used among bschool students who have NO idea what consulting is all about. I dare you to attend a bschool MC employee info session and ask the presenter what fraction of their work is "strategy". You'll look retarded.
The hey days of pure "strategy" consulting are largely over. The fastest growing sectors for consulting are energy, transportation, and the public sector, all of which have an inherently operational bent and contain major overlaps with gov't. This is not Mck's strong suit. Bain and even Booz are stronger that Mck in these areas.
As for your CV, recent bschool grads will quickly find out that simply having Mck on your resume means sh*t. The firm I work for -- a major pharma company -- would hire the SA from Deloitte with 3-4 yrs under his belt than the assoc from Mck who quit/counseled out after 2 years. You guys will quickly find out that the "real world" (ie, F500) couldn't care less what firm you worked for. They only care about engagement experience and job performance. In fact, one could argue that you should work for Deloitte and be a stand out and get staffed on top engagements than work for mck and be mediocre and get counseled out in 2 years. EVERYONE KNOWS (INCLDUING MCK ALMUNI) THAT MCK IS LOWERING THEIR HIRING STANDARDS TO ACCOMODATE GROWTH, SO SIMPLY WORKING FOR MCK FOR 2 YEARS MEANS LITTLE AND OPENS NO MORE DOOORS THAN WORKING FOR OTHER TOP FIRMS.
It's great to see the bubble finally burst on Mck on this board. The rest of the world already knew it -- it's about time bschools and Vault and "prestige whores" caught up!
|
|
