| Topic Name: |
McKinsey in decline? |
| Message Name: |
Thanks man |
| Date Posted: |
12/28/2005 |
| In Reply To: |
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.
|
| Message: |
appreciate your agreements, disagreements and added data points. I do wax on a lot (too laxy to be crisp). But I like it best when I can get a contrast that I learn from. Plus I love hashing this kind of stuff over...one of the dissappointments for me at the Firm was that I wanted to do more of such hashing than others did. But they worked harder...
To clarify my stance (one I think you disagree with...but I just read some more of the thread and want to push my viewpoint):
I'm not worried about the cost of McK studies for work the client could have done. What I'm more worried about is places where McK gives bad advice, where they play into a culture of agency effect (helping CEO's stave off a takeover is the classic example but there are others) or internal politics. Where the appearance of objectivity and premier brand allows recommendations to go forward under a partially false flag. At times I even think McK plays into (or beleives) a philosophy of tendentious textualism which is a negative thing for society. Instead they should be playing into promoting rationality/honesty.
I don't think that they always do this...nor that there aren't clients who do it worse/more. However, I've been on studies and seen reasonable reasoned objections from the client get trampled to push a flawed recommendation. In this sense, McK trades on its aura of honesty and clear thinking to promote something that is the reverse.
Net/net: I could care less about some team doing PMM that was "too expensive" for the client. I think there are few places that we do so much work that we milk the company to death (unlike the IT shops). What bugs me in my client-first heart is things like asset-lite projects at Enron, the dotcom work, Compaq acquisition, etc.
|
|
