| Topic Name: |
McKinsey in decline? |
| Message Name: |
Pittsburgg |
| Date Posted: |
12/29/2005 |
| In Reply To: |
on herd mentality:
herd mentality can shape reality. both b-schools and MCs rely foremost on the talent and smarts of their recruits to be successful (I personally don't buy it that culture, teaching quality or "knowledge base" are all that decisive...) If herd mentality establishes a ranking that is arbitrary at first, over time it will drive reality and widen actual gaps. On _average_, no way deloitte gets better people that McK, if only because of the herd effects, and subsequent employers take that previous "vetting" as a signal that is very valuable to the employer.
The pic in your imaginary F500 firm looking to hire someone is different - the Deloitte guy may be a genuine overperformer looking for a career upgrade, while for the McK guy a move to industry is not obviously better than his old job, so there is a decent possibility he was a washout. But take for instance a PE shop (a clear "up" move for both guys): my hunch is that the McK guy will get a look and the Deloitte resume goes directly to the trash bin...
on "hiring bar":
Not everyone is quant/math oriented but that doesn't make them morons and they can still contribute. That being said hiring mistakes do happen, even with 4-6 interviews. That there is an up-or-out structure is more or less an acknowledgement of that. So the McK brand on your butt is only that, a brand. Makes customer more likely to buy the product, but does not guarantee the product doesn't suck, and after a while if it's no good nobody will buy it anymore...
on distinctive work etc.:
I've never thought that consultants are hired to reinvent the wheel. Big innovation is inherently very risky, I much prefer companies that are nimble and can move quickly to adopt winning formulas once they are proven. I think consultants bring the most value when they help clients get their basics right and execute, and that involves more common sense, honest assessments of the situation and leverage to influence top management decisions than world-shattering, nobel-winning innovation.
on CEO/company as client and agency effects:
don't work for McK, but at my firm the lead partner in our office has now recommended firing the CEO to the board on three different projects :-) succeeded twice, got thrown out once, not bad...
on geography:
hey whartonkid, Pittsburgh comes with final h - you already made that mistake twice in this thread. Went to school in the same state and can't spell name of the second biggest city??? |
| Message: |
I agree with you in theory that in many contexts, brand perception may eventually drive reality. BUT, do you really think that there is that much variation among the H/S/W students who go to Mck vs. those who go to Bain or even Booz/Marakon/Monitor? The REAL "proverbial bar" that was overcome was getting into the bschool to begin with. Getting an interview with Mck is easy -- and doing well on the case is hit or miss. When I did interviews at HBS for my old MC firm, the difference in case performance b/w dings and offers was negligible. Many times, we almost flipped a coin to decide who got an offer!
Also, I agree that there's a hell a lot more to being a consultant than quant skills. In fact, some of the most successful partners at my old firm were average in quant. They had enough to get by, but their leadership and interpersonal skills drove their success. Don't mean to slam Mck again, but the consultants I met from Bain and Booz were way more likable than the Mck quant nerds I encountered. And the Bain/Booz guys, though they couldn't multiply 389 x 42 in their head like the mck guys, could do more than enough math required to solve F500 problems.
|
|
