4 ms·

I'm fine stating that engineers from non-elite schools are just as well equipped for the tasks you describe, but that wasn't the GP's contention. The point is t

I'm fine stating that engineers from non-elite schools are just as well equipped for the tasks you describe, but that wasn't the GP's contention. The point is that McKinsey make bad recommendations that have demonstrably bad outcomes. Their fingerprints are all over numerous bad decisions in business and government in the past few decades[0]. These are the bare minimum, because there are quite likely many negative outcomes they have championed in their role as consultants that were never publicized or reported on. Totally separate from the above is their absolutely mercenary tendency to work with anyone who will pay them[1][2]. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinsey_%26_Company#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinsey_%26_Company#Controver... [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/15/world/asia/mckinsey-china-russia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/15/world/asia/mckinsey-china... [2] - https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/mckinseys-work-for-saudi-arabia-highlights-its-history-of-unsavory-entanglements https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/mckinseys-work-for-...

ath92 6y ago
McKinsey has 27,000 employees. That's the population of an entire town. I'm not saying that the things described in the links you posted here aren't bad, but I think it's important to remember with this many employees, there will always be someone doing something that you don't agree with.
- olsonjeffery 6y ago
  To be clear: Is your assertion that, because these outcomes aren't a deliberate conspiracy, we have to let them happen because of... what, exactly? Whether it's an emergent feature of this style of consulting or a firm consisting of the worst human beings is besides the point. Elite management consulting firms (McKinsey, Deloitte, Bain, etc) exist to enable the worst impulses of leadership across the spectrum. The ends certainly justify scrutinizing the means.
- _jal 6y ago
  This assertion is both true and irrelevant. Try: "Comcast customer service has a huge number of employees. I'm not saying there aren't jerks in there, but..." Devolving corporate responsibility (for the bad stuff) to individuals is of course the corporate preference. But at some point you run in to the "only the best people" problem - McKinsey hires them, trains them, assigns them and pays them, no matter how slippery McKinsey PR is, I keep seeing that name, McKinsey.
ChrisLomont 6y ago
Cherry picking bad examples is not how to evaluate how often McKinsey "make bad recommendations that have demonstrably bad outcomes". Any company the size of McKinsey around as long as McKinsey will have success and failure stories. The proper way to evalaute is to take all things McKinsey did, normalize for background, and see how it performs compared to other methods of solving the same problems. Cherry picking to make a claim is the 2nd worst form of evidence, outranked only by outright lying.
- GreeniFi 6y ago
  Great comment. I might go further and say that cherry-picking is either an attempt to deceive the listener or oneself. I’d put it on the same pedestal as lying.
- olsonjeffery 6y ago
  "We can never criticize something unless we can contemplate the totality of it" isn't constructive or helpful and has (from my interpretation) the net effect of stating the the status quo is fine. Is that what you're contending? Firms like McKinsey, for reasons of trade secrets, confidentiality wrt their client book, discretion because of the nature of their work, etc don't have data available about the completeness of their outcomes. In fact, their white papers focus exclusively on successes. What about instances where their contribution has a not-zero impact (we could even include and offset the cost of their consultations against the total impact of advise offered, assuming it's followed)? Do you have a proposal for how to conduct such an analysis? Furthermore, I would offer that much of the nature of their impacts isn't something we can know with mathematical precision and exists in the realms of the social sciences (a broad domain known to have major skew problems when measurements are taken, if at all). So we are left with optics and moral/ethical assessments of the work they have done. Taking this into account, I am content with this approach and the conclusions I have arrived at.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    >"We can never criticize something unless we can contemplate the totality of it" isn't constructive or helpful But you're ok with cherry picking events to suit a narrative when advocating for change? Did you even try to find examples where they were successful in your eyes, or did you simply pick the examples that suit your claims? >Do you have a proposal for how to conduct such an analysis? Simply looking at how many customers are repeat customers shows that they're at least doing something their customers are willing to pay for. That's easily a vastly better metric then simply cherry picking examples on one side of an argument. I'd suspect that current customers are vastly more aware of what value they provide than you'd pick up from news stories, especially if, as you contend, there's no way to know these details from outside views. They've been around 95 years, 27k employees, 10B in annual revenue, a client list that is incredibly diverse, among every sector of society, among all political parties, and including a huge number of worldwide governments and companies. That alone should make you realize perhaps there is value in what they do, that thousands of customers think so, and that trying to paint them as "McKinsey make bad recommendations that have demonstrably bad outcomes." is probably vastly short-sighted. You then double down and claim it's probably even worse if one could see inside. I would weight the opinions of their customers over those obviously cherry picking examples then making un-nuanced and sweeping generalizations. I am content with that approach. Seems more evidence based.

ath92 6y ago

McKinsey has 27,000 employees. That's the population of an entire town. I'm not saying that the things described in the links you posted here aren't bad, but I think it's important to remember with this many employees, there will always be someone doing something that you don't agree with.

olsonjeffery 6y ago
To be clear: Is your assertion that, because these outcomes aren't a deliberate conspiracy, we have to let them happen because of... what, exactly? Whether it's an emergent feature of this style of consulting or a firm consisting of the worst human beings is besides the point. Elite management consulting firms (McKinsey, Deloitte, Bain, etc) exist to enable the worst impulses of leadership across the spectrum. The ends certainly justify scrutinizing the means.
_jal 6y ago
This assertion is both true and irrelevant. Try: "Comcast customer service has a huge number of employees. I'm not saying there aren't jerks in there, but..." Devolving corporate responsibility (for the bad stuff) to individuals is of course the corporate preference. But at some point you run in to the "only the best people" problem - McKinsey hires them, trains them, assigns them and pays them, no matter how slippery McKinsey PR is, I keep seeing that name, McKinsey.

ChrisLomont 6y ago

Cherry picking bad examples is not how to evaluate how often McKinsey "make bad recommendations that have demonstrably bad outcomes". Any company the size of McKinsey around as long as McKinsey will have success and failure stories. The proper way to evalaute is to take all things McKinsey did, normalize for background, and see how it performs compared to other methods of solving the same problems. Cherry picking to make a claim is the 2nd worst form of evidence, outranked only by outright lying.

GreeniFi 6y ago
Great comment. I might go further and say that cherry-picking is either an attempt to deceive the listener or oneself. I’d put it on the same pedestal as lying.
olsonjeffery 6y ago
"We can never criticize something unless we can contemplate the totality of it" isn't constructive or helpful and has (from my interpretation) the net effect of stating the the status quo is fine. Is that what you're contending? Firms like McKinsey, for reasons of trade secrets, confidentiality wrt their client book, discretion because of the nature of their work, etc don't have data available about the completeness of their outcomes. In fact, their white papers focus exclusively on successes. What about instances where their contribution has a not-zero impact (we could even include and offset the cost of their consultations against the total impact of advise offered, assuming it's followed)? Do you have a proposal for how to conduct such an analysis? Furthermore, I would offer that much of the nature of their impacts isn't something we can know with mathematical precision and exists in the realms of the social sciences (a broad domain known to have major skew problems when measurements are taken, if at all). So we are left with optics and moral/ethical assessments of the work they have done. Taking this into account, I am content with this approach and the conclusions I have arrived at.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  >"We can never criticize something unless we can contemplate the totality of it" isn't constructive or helpful But you're ok with cherry picking events to suit a narrative when advocating for change? Did you even try to find examples where they were successful in your eyes, or did you simply pick the examples that suit your claims? >Do you have a proposal for how to conduct such an analysis? Simply looking at how many customers are repeat customers shows that they're at least doing something their customers are willing to pay for. That's easily a vastly better metric then simply cherry picking examples on one side of an argument. I'd suspect that current customers are vastly more aware of what value they provide than you'd pick up from news stories, especially if, as you contend, there's no way to know these details from outside views. They've been around 95 years, 27k employees, 10B in annual revenue, a client list that is incredibly diverse, among every sector of society, among all political parties, and including a huge number of worldwide governments and companies. That alone should make you realize perhaps there is value in what they do, that thousands of customers think so, and that trying to paint them as "McKinsey make bad recommendations that have demonstrably bad outcomes." is probably vastly short-sighted. You then double down and claim it's probably even worse if one could see inside. I would weight the opinions of their customers over those obviously cherry picking examples then making un-nuanced and sweeping generalizations. I am content with that approach. Seems more evidence based.