| Topic Name: |
McKinsey in decline? |
| Message Name: |
Much ado about nothing |
| Date Posted: |
12/28/2005 |
| In Reply To: |
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! |
| Message: |
1/
If you ask, during a MBA info session, what %age of McK work is "strategy", the answer will be "Abou 30 - 40% of our engagements are categorised as 'Strategy'" The next comment will be that any kind of engagement done as a "startegic" component to it (e.g. lean manufacturing is a key strategic tool for a company that builds its competitive advantage in terme of cost leadership), as therfore the classification is more or less pointless.
That is why very few consulting firms actually describe themselves as "Strategic consulting firms". For example, McK uses the "Top-management" wording to describe its positionning... because top-management is concerned by much more than just strategy.
Everybody knows that (or should know it), and that is not the poiint of the discussion.
2/
I very much doubt you have any facts about the relative positionnning of McK, Bain and Booz in Energy, Transportation and Public sector (*). What is your metric (billing hours, number of clients, aggregate Revenues of clients?), what is the scope (US, Europe, Christian Western Countries, worldwide?) and how do you know the facts? How do you have any idea of the relative connectiions of M/B/B partners with local governments??? Please...
Any differences in terms of industry client base must be LOCAL hen talking about M/B/B (and others)... E.g. if you say that McK has no Metal & Mining client in Canada (or even maybe North America), you might be right... saying it has no Metal & Mining clients at all, you are just plain wrong.
3/
About havng McK on the CV, I reckon you are right, with a fe mitigations / variations
- Better have 2 yrs at MCk than 2 yrs at Deloitte when looking for a job... same with 3, 4 or n years. Your example compares 2 yrs at McK with 3-4 yrs at Deloitte: I wonder why...
- The alumni network does matter when looking for a job. It is not all-powerfull, by far, but it does matter. So, again, better be at McK than Deloitte (to take your example, again).
Everything else being equal, McK still has a little better value proposition than BCG or Bain (or others) for new hires provided that:
- one does not want to work as a specialist in a boutique (some small firms are excellent in their field)
- one actually has a career plan and does leverage its experience at the firm (network + engagements) to get closer to his goal
3.
About lowering the standards.
That is likely to be true in Asia (China, Singapore, mainly) and maybe in a few other places. It is not true for the main offices: do you really believe that NY or SF are short of candidates? Please...
s.
(*) By the way, Energy and Transportation companies are still state-owned in quite a lot of countries... could you be more specific in your comment?
|
|
