3 ms·
> The blame is meaningless to them and has zero negative consequences I would imagine this many government ties helps a little bit when it comes to consequence
by rapind 4y ago
> The blame is meaningless to them and has zero negative consequences
I would imagine this many government ties helps a little bit when it comes to consequences:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_employees_of_McKinsey_%26_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_employees_of_Mc...
- kolbe 4y agoThis I think is the reality of it all. There's a subtle hint of extortion in their work. A tone of "oh, you need to lay off thousands of workers because your business isn't doing as well as it sounds? That's a shame. That sounds a lot like securities fraud to me. We have the commissioner's daughter on our payroll, so if you let us advise on the layoffs, maybe you can avoid charges."
- WastingMyTime89 4y agoNo, it’s not nor is it solely responsibility diffusion. The real trick of McKinsey is being everywhere. If you are a corporate strategist, you can try to do the best you can with what your analysts tell you and your own data. But if you hire McKinsey you are sure their advice will be at least as good as the one they are giving your competitors. Of course they don’t make it obvious. They have internal shielding, privacy protection, the whole shebang. But you might get invited to be part of the benchmark which matters and their internal documentation pulls cleverly from all their cases. It’s subtle but hiring them is the closest you can get to a cartel without crossing the line. That’s why they are so expensive.
- kolbe 4y agoI wholeheartedly disagree. I have never heard of a single instance where they provided actual, useful, cutting edge actionable advise. I however have seen them payroll dozens of unremarkable yet politically connected people. You are repeating the narrative they pitch out loud, but whenever they make this pitch, they also make sure you hear the extortion angle as well. In the instance of this very article, what makes more sense? McK offered competitive advise that sold more product. Or, given that at all the companies they advised, employees knowingly murdered hundreds of thousands of people and escaped any legal culpability, that the fees went to paying off politicians to protect them from investigation/prosecution?