McKinsey putting 3000 staffers on pip

[Anonymous]

PIPs are incredibly stressful on employees and wasting everyone’s time. Lay them off and everybody gets to move on. It’s prolonging the inevitable so a company can look better? So stupid.

[Anonymous]

The PIP buys the employees time to look for other employment. It’s better than laying off everyone today and they are jobless.
Everyone on the PIP understands the assignment, they are out, find something quick.

[Anonymous]

I used to work for Deloitte and this happened periodically. These firms higher like crazy during them times and then layoff the high cost consultants. It’s not rare or new.

I wish they would think it through more carefully though. Right before I left I had coffee with a new hire. She had applied a year before she was hired and heard nothing. she was surprised to get a call for an interview a year later. She did the interview out of curiosity but got far enough along that she was I’m actually about to deliver my first baby, so I don’t think it’s going work out. They said we can make it work out… Have the baby and have a six month maternity leave and then you can start. They were so desperate at that point.

And then time goes by and they lay people off.

These big firms employee like 80,000 people so 3000 isn’t that big of a number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not just do a layoff?

McKinsey only “counsels” people out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The PIP buys the employees time to look for other employment. It’s better than laying off everyone today and they are jobless.
Everyone on the PIP understands the assignment, they are out, find something quick.

A lot of consultant hires might become the client later on. The world is smaller than you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PIP buys the employees time to look for other employment. It’s better than laying off everyone today and they are jobless.
Everyone on the PIP understands the assignment, they are out, find something quick.

A lot of consultant hires might become the client later on. The world is smaller than you think.

You’re stating the obvious. That’s par for the course for ex consultants, they head to industry as an exit strategy.

[Anonymous]

I guess McKinsey needs to outsource this to some real consultants.

[Anonymous]

Imagine you work hard at school, do all the right sports etc to get to a good college, where you work like a dog, do the right internships and then land the dream: a plum job at McKinsey. All that only to be managed out a few months later. Sad.

[Anonymous]

https://www.google.com/gasearch?q=mckinsey%20john%20oliver&tbm=&source=sh/x/gs/m2/5#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:65e2f964,vid:AiOUojVd6xQ,st:0

This sums it up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine you work hard at school, do all the right sports etc to get to a good college, where you work like a dog, do the right internships and then land the dream: a plum job at McKinsey. All that only to be managed out a few months later. Sad.

It’s not the recent hires they are letting go, those are cheap labor. It’s likely the more experienced hires who don’t show potential for moving up any higher. Consulting is up or out culture anyway, the bottom of the barrel probably new they were on the chopping block.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not just do a layoff?

People often leave on their own after being put on a pip so you don’t have to pay them severance or look bad in the press about doing layoffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PIPs suck. Just lay them off. Stop making employees jump through hoops only to be let go. Waste of time.

It makes McKinsey look incompetent if they actually fire en masse.

I went to a job market talk last week and there was an h.r. person who works for a McKinsey competitor. She's basically an internal career counselor and outplacement counselor. Gotta keep the pipeline moving!

Seems like a gamble either way. This PIP strategy works if your worker are actually able to transition to other jobs. If they aren't and you end up having to fire a bunch of them with flimsy performance documentation I'd think your liability exposure is much larger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just do a layoff?

People often leave on their own after being put on a pip so you don’t have to pay them severance or look bad in the press about doing layoffs.

Those people remain bitter for decades, that’s why the projects I decide go to competitor consultancy 🫠

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PIPs suck. Just lay them off. Stop making employees jump through hoops only to be let go. Waste of time.

It makes McKinsey look incompetent if they actually fire en masse.

I went to a job market talk last week and there was an h.r. person who works for a McKinsey competitor. She's basically an internal career counselor and outplacement counselor. Gotta keep the pipeline moving!

Seems like a gamble either way. This PIP strategy works if your worker are actually able to transition to other jobs. If they aren't and you end up having to fire a bunch of them with flimsy performance documentation I'd think your liability exposure is much larger.

If a few consultants don’t meet performance bar it makes sense to PIP them.
If 15% of your hires don’t meet performance bar there is something with you or the hiring process. As a company you look disorganized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just do a layoff?

People often leave on their own after being put on a pip so you don’t have to pay them severance or look bad in the press about doing layoffs.

Those people remain bitter for decades, that’s why the projects I decide go to competitor consultancy 🫠

Me too! This happened to me at Big4 as part of a round of stealth layoffs and when I quickly landed another job the partners had the gall to reach out to sniff around for work. Unbelievable to think that bridge wouldn't be burned forever.