Talk:McKinsey & Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as high-importance on the assessment scale

Contents 1 "Thug-like" habits 2 Diversified hires 3 Too Negative? 4 Negative News 5 Ownership 6 Warning of potential future trolling/vandalism 7 Definite/indefinite article

[edit] "Thug-like" habits

Page 12 of "The Age of Heretics" by Art kleiner describe some thug like habit that Mckinsey used during the 50s when it had virtual monopoly of management. I just wish there is a tactful way to include this information here without sounding too negative

[edit] Diversified hires

User:Prohibit Onions and myself seem to have a difference in opinion regarding the statement that McKinsey is hiring people with diversified backgrounds. ProhibitOnions originally had a statement that "most" diversified hires had MBAs. I removed that (without checking its history--nothing personal) as an unnecessary addition which I thought was likely false. ProhibitOnions is adding it back in softened to "many" diversified hires have MBAs. It still feels funny to me - I know a lot of McKinsey diversified hires and extremely few have MBAs, but that's "personal research". Does someone (e.g. ProhibitOnions) have any source for the claim that "many" or "most" have MBAs? Otherwise I suggest to take the phrase back out. Comments? Martinp 11:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, my experience has been the opposite, and from looking at recent McK materials regarding some of its consultants, it seems to me at the very least that the Firm is keen to consider someone who studied, say, philosophy, and then went on to do an MBA, as a "diversified hire," whereas in the past this would not have been so.

I suspect that the reason for this is McK's realization that it has a bit of an image problem, at least in the sense that many people think the Firm consists of nothing but MBAs, and might be susceptible to groupthink; it is thus eager to change this perception, in addition to hiring some consultants from non-traditional backgrounds.

Again, though, because of the intense secrecy surrounding the Firm, we may never know the true numbers, and if you're uncomfortable with the phrase, by all means take it out. ProhibitOnions 12:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Amazingly, there is public McKinsey data on this. The split among those with graduate degrees is nearly 50% MBA, 50% non-MBA (such as Ph.D, J.D., M.D., with no MBA) worldwide. Accordingly I'm taking the phrase out.

I think the reason is not as much image, as genuine desire to avoid groupthink and to broaden the hiring pool. Martinp 21:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The recurring block deletioning of universities the recruit from does not help showing diversity either. How about setting a policy on that: to keep the list or to keep deleting the list of universities? Last round of wipeout was: Harvard Business School, the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, the MIT Sloan School of Management, the Stanford Graduate School of Business, the Wharton School of Business, the Kellogg School of Management, the Columbia Business School, and INSEAD. This list shows it goes beyone Ivy League alone and even recruits graduates from abroad. There are however two problems here: is this list verified? And is this list only US-centric? A qualifies university list is important since some companies and institutions insist on recruiting from a very limited number of universities. --23:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Negative?

Hmmm... Not sure how the article can be balance without some negatives. The current draft reads like a McKinsey puff article.

I once bet a McKinsey partner a thousand dollars that he could not back up a single "fact" on one of his viewgraphs. His reply was bluster, but he refused to take my bet, or to back up his facts.

When I told this story at a business dinner one evening. Each exectuive, at a table of about 10 people, from a variety of industries, took turns telling stories about McKinsey foulups. Cokie Roberts had the best story, about a set of recomendations for ABC that would any rookie should seen as just dumb.

The fact is that McKinsey makes mistakes sometimes, and when they do, it can have awful consequences sometimes for thousands of employees who never knew where the crazy ideas came from.

Yep, the current article is written in "McKinsey style" — right down to the bulleted three-point criticism! It is a bit too positive, and doesn't mention things about the Firm that have been widely publicized, such as the tendency of its consultants to simply offer whatever the latest fashionable "management theory" is as their reasoned and expensive "analysis" (they are mostly recent grads, after all). Groupthink is a big problem; the Firm likes to tell you what a diverse bunch of people they have, but they're mostly silver-spoon MBA's. There was a BBC documentary about five years ago about what McK did for Cadbury (and others), in essence issuing expensively contradictory advice every couple of years. ProhibitOnions

Not to slag off the Firm, but this may be the flip side to its secrecy; like many other shadowy organizations, its activities tend to spawn legends, and its successes and failures, both real and imagined, are often wildly exaggerated.

FWIW, the article does not yet mention the frequent, and generally unfair, accusation that McK is a "job killer," which I think should be added in context (job cuts may sometimes be necessary to save bloated companies from bankruptcy, etc.). ProhibitOnions 12:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Negative News

500 dead so far, another McKinsey & Co. negative news story.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/601476

Should this be in the article page instead of here?

No, I don't really see a direct connection. As silly as McK advice may have been in other circumstances, what they suggested as mentioned in the article is pretty straightforward; whereas corruption, bad or nonexistent emergency planning, overwhelmed city services, poor construction, etc would seem to have a lot more to do with the events described. Or is there more to this? ProhibitOnions 14:58, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership

"McKinsey & Company is a privately owned management consulting firm ... ." Do we have any further information on this? Does partnership also entitle one to a share of ownership? Are shareholders necessarily partners? Is there a larger "private boss" or corporate owner who would have the final word over and above the managing director?

I'm not sure how openly the Firm discusses this, but only people employed at the Firm are allowed to own shares, and then only upon invitation by the other shareholders. There are restrictions as to how many shares any one individual can own, and the shares are not transferable. In practice, there are three levels of shareholdership: associate principals, principals, and directors. The managing director is a director. He/she is elected by the other directors and functions as a "first among equals" with very little formal power beyond the support of the various committees. All shareholders must sell back their shares to the firm at book value when they enter a retirement window, die, or leave the Firm. It's all very restricted. --Leifern 20:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning of potential future trolling/vandalism

Just a warning that we are entering peak recruiting season for McKinsey and other consulting Firms. This may lead to an increase in vandalism as well as "jockeying" in the list of example schools where McKinsey recruits and the list of other companies called competitors. Martinp 02:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the excessively long list of "notable alumni" that I just reverted.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 09:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a notable list of employees of the company, and as such has been restored. Please explain why you believe this material does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Thanks. Harro5 23:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it's excessive, as I said above, and it's McK showing off, as Martinp said before that. Do we need to know that the son of the former Greek prime minister worked for McK? Wouldn't a dozen or so names be enough to make the point that some McK consultants go on to work for other companies? We don't provide lists of former employees for every company, and we don't need to help McK advertise.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 04:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It could be moved into a separate list and linked to, but to say it is excessive is a bad description. Because many notable people went to Harvard, does that mean we should choose who of them is the "most notable" even though they all meet the WP:BIO criteria? There is no reason to remove what is encyclopedic information, and it is a self-fulfilling argument for you to say that this should be removed because it somehow constitutes advertising. Harro5 05:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

We didn't say anyone was "most notable". We listed a handful of names. There's nothing wrong with concision. And yes, McK does like to show off with lists of its alumni (and McK people have clearly edited this article in the past). Long lists of things have been removed from other articles in the past, regardless of whether the individual entries were encyclopedic. If you want to create a separate list article, go ahead.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 05:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definite/indefinite article

I removed the following:

The Economist magazine, on the other hand, always refers to McKinsey as "a management consultancy."

since the Economist always uses the indefinite article in descriptions, as a matter of house style [1]. Thus, that it should do so is no reflection of its opinion of the stature of a company, organisation, etc.

Soobrickay 19:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)