| Topic Name: |
Up or Out policy |
| Message Name: |
I'm both |
| Date Posted: |
03/03/2006 |
| In Reply To: |
I've heard that McKinsey have a very demanding up or out policy and that only 1/5 to 1/6 make partner at the firm. After investment of time and money to new associates in developing them, it doesn't make sense to let him/her go for a fresh no-nothing recruit. Is up or out policy at the firm an old system or some thing recent based on Welch's rank'em and yank'em?
Also anyone care to comment on GE's brand compared to McKinsey in post "out" opportunity? There is an article in this week's businessweek on McK and GE alumni and their clout/success in starting outsourcing firms in the US and India. I didn't realize that GE had such a high prestige.
|
| Message: |
I'm at McK now, and I was at GE prior to B-School.
GE is an amazing company. It could be better in many ways, but still, compared to other companies I've worked with, it gets my vote for "most admired."
There are many, many similarities between McK and GE. For example, both organizations are very "values based" (and the values aren't just given lip service). Both organizations aspire to be meritocracies (I'll give the edge to McK on this one, since politics still matters at GE). Both organizations do a great job of developing people (I'll give the edge to GE, assuming get noticed and on the fast track).
The biggest differences? Well, a lot of McKinsey people take pride in saying that we're "insecure overachievers." At GE, being selfconfident, and being "comfortable in your own skin" are required traits. That's why McK people go into meets with 100 page decks, and GE guys come with 5 pages. Anyone who has read my other posts knows how I feel about the insecurity thing. To me, it is the insecure people who come off as arrogant; putting others down to make themselves feel good. The people who are really self aware and self confident, have nothing to prove, and don't overcompensate. I tell my teams at McK that we should be "driven, selfconfident, overachievers."
There is a really interesting article from Fortune, from a few years ago, called the "CEO Superbowl." Fortune described GE vs McKinsey as the "Hockey Team vs the Chess Club," - that's intented to be funny, but there is some truth to it (GE hires from State schools, McK from the Ivy League). According to Fortune, GE was the better CEO factory.
At the end of the day, I have to disagree with lvmcv, and give the edge to GE. I think there are more successful general managers that come out of GE than out of McKinsey. The problem with consulting firms is that many people are just cut out to be advisors, and not real business leaders. Sure, consulting firms have a lot of folks who bring that X-factor with them into the role, but many consultants are just frustrated academics at heart, they fall in love with the "problem solving" too much to be good at running a business. The problem that GE alumni have is that they don't always appreciate what a great, high performing company GE is. I'll use a race car example. It is easy to convince yourself that you are the world's best race when you drive a new Porsche 911 Turbo. Lots of power, reliable, and handles well. The other folks you're racing against are often driving less capable vehicles, even though they may be better drivers. It is difficult for GE guys to step into a less capable vehicle, or even one that handles differently (AWD 911 vs. RWD Ferrari, to continue the analogy). Some GE guys do really well, some fizzle and wonder why. Just like some McK guys get stuck in "staff" jobs, and wonder why they never get into a line job.
Back to the Fortune analysis, the results are tough to calibrate because of the number of folks who have both GE and McKinsey on their resume. I think the takeaway should be that GE and McKinsey are both fantastic opportunites that attract and develop high-performer. You can't go wrong with either, but they are different paths (which can sometimes lead to the same place). They are both distinctive organizations at the top of their games, but GE to McK is apples to oranges on many levels. And finially, I'd say that there is less career risk with McK. GE is "higher beta;" you can do extremely well, but you can get stuck in middle management for ever...
|
|
