4 ms·

Why does it seem like McKinsey is impervious from their pseudoscience mistakes? This is one of many instances where McKinsey acted in bad faith, and flat out l

Why does it seem like McKinsey is impervious from their pseudoscience mistakes? This is one of many instances where McKinsey acted in bad faith, and flat out lied about their numbers. If any other business did that, they’d have a tarnished reputation. As an “elite” consulting firm, shouldn’t that be the nail in their coffin?

djohnston 6y ago
military industrial complex i think
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  No, that's why Boeing, Raytheon, et al are impervious to their mistakes. McK is impervious because they contract in such a way as to never actually have to deliver anything. A sea wolf sub is a tangible deliverable. You can tell it's not fit for purpose in a physical fashion. You can always BS around the kinds of soft deliverables that are specialties of McK.
  - Technically 6y ago
    McKinsey is part of the military industrial complex (though these days we need to loop in "educational" too): https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/02/spies-intelligence-community-mckinsey-1390863 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/02/spies-intelligence... Still, you haven't addressed how they seem to remain popular despite being ineffective. My sense is it's a "nobody ever got fired for hiring McKinsey" kind of deal and they're just on the Washington nepotistic short list.
spamizbad 6y ago
I get the impression if you're at McKinsey you're basically a "made man" and are impervious to most normal professional consequences for failure, provided that failure does not significantly reduce billing. Also the people who hire you are in the same situation. So things like this are inevitable.
ffggvv 6y ago
they all went to harvard so obviously if you question them you’re in the wrong
nickff 6y ago
McKinsey is often hired to provide 'intellectual firepower' behind a proposed change that a high-level manager already wants to make. As such, McKinsey isn't really coming up with any original idea, so their past 'proposals' are somewhat irrelevant.
- gundmc 6y ago
  This is my experience working with McKinsey. The consultants on our team were incredibly smart and incredibly hard working, but internal politics and selling ideas to stakeholders is a huge part of their value. It carries a lot of weight to say you worked with McKinsey on a proposal.
  - mint2 6y ago
    I don’t understand this. Isn’t it common knowledge that hiring McKinsey or other consultants is often to do what you wanted while off loading the blame on the consultants? But because it’s a known reason for consultants shouldn’t it stop working? Why do people humor it and go along with the farce? Even then, even if they weren’t just cover, the person who hired them and let them do something poorly thought out or wrong should have responsibility.
wavefunction 6y ago
"Outside experts" are a way for a so-called managerial class to signal that they are "taking action" while offloading negative outcomes and any accountability to firms like McKinsey via blame-shifting. The voting public is not exactly allowed to weigh in on whether high-priced consultants should be engaged.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  It's like "third party investigation." In other words, BS with no teeth.
- mint2 6y ago
  But how is it tolerated if that’s a common purpose? Like the cat should be out of the bag by now on that tactic.
tmpz22 6y ago
Pretty sure they're paid to provide bad numbers and take the fall for the results. New York wanted to say it was doing something and it was successful, McKinsey helped them do it, and when someone bothered enough to fact check and they got caught McKinsey now takes most of the heat.
- firethief 6y ago
  This will eventually lead to The Whorf Effect[1]. Nice work while they can get it though. 1: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWorfEffect https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWorfEffect
voisin 6y ago
Because they are often there to tell someone what they want to hear, and give them a report to cover that person’s backside. No one ever got fired for following McKinsey, even if McKinsey was just an echo chamber.

djohnston 6y ago

military industrial complex i think

bilbo0s 6y ago
No, that's why Boeing, Raytheon, et al are impervious to their mistakes. McK is impervious because they contract in such a way as to never actually have to deliver anything. A sea wolf sub is a tangible deliverable. You can tell it's not fit for purpose in a physical fashion. You can always BS around the kinds of soft deliverables that are specialties of McK.
- Technically 6y ago
  McKinsey is part of the military industrial complex (though these days we need to loop in "educational" too): https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/02/spies-intelligence-community-mckinsey-1390863 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/02/spies-intelligence... Still, you haven't addressed how they seem to remain popular despite being ineffective. My sense is it's a "nobody ever got fired for hiring McKinsey" kind of deal and they're just on the Washington nepotistic short list.

spamizbad 6y ago

I get the impression if you're at McKinsey you're basically a "made man" and are impervious to most normal professional consequences for failure, provided that failure does not significantly reduce billing. Also the people who hire you are in the same situation. So things like this are inevitable.

ffggvv 6y ago

they all went to harvard so obviously if you question them you’re in the wrong

nickff 6y ago

McKinsey is often hired to provide 'intellectual firepower' behind a proposed change that a high-level manager already wants to make. As such, McKinsey isn't really coming up with any original idea, so their past 'proposals' are somewhat irrelevant.

gundmc 6y ago
This is my experience working with McKinsey. The consultants on our team were incredibly smart and incredibly hard working, but internal politics and selling ideas to stakeholders is a huge part of their value. It carries a lot of weight to say you worked with McKinsey on a proposal.
- mint2 6y ago
  I don’t understand this. Isn’t it common knowledge that hiring McKinsey or other consultants is often to do what you wanted while off loading the blame on the consultants? But because it’s a known reason for consultants shouldn’t it stop working? Why do people humor it and go along with the farce? Even then, even if they weren’t just cover, the person who hired them and let them do something poorly thought out or wrong should have responsibility.

wavefunction 6y ago

"Outside experts" are a way for a so-called managerial class to signal that they are "taking action" while offloading negative outcomes and any accountability to firms like McKinsey via blame-shifting. The voting public is not exactly allowed to weigh in on whether high-priced consultants should be engaged.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
It's like "third party investigation." In other words, BS with no teeth.
mint2 6y ago
But how is it tolerated if that’s a common purpose? Like the cat should be out of the bag by now on that tactic.

tmpz22 6y ago

Pretty sure they're paid to provide bad numbers and take the fall for the results. New York wanted to say it was doing something and it was successful, McKinsey helped them do it, and when someone bothered enough to fact check and they got caught McKinsey now takes most of the heat.

firethief 6y ago
This will eventually lead to The Whorf Effect[1]. Nice work while they can get it though. 1: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWorfEffect https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWorfEffect

voisin 6y ago

Because they are often there to tell someone what they want to hear, and give them a report to cover that person’s backside. No one ever got fired for following McKinsey, even if McKinsey was just an echo chamber.