McKinsey putting 3000 staffers on pip

[Anonymous]

this is so gross and like torturing ppl.
what happened that companies think they can just behave in this way?
I'm in a position to recommend or need a consultancy firm and this makes me want mckinsey to f right off.

[Anonymous]

Look Goldman always fired bottom 5 percent each year

Deadwood gets pruned.

[Anonymous]

Idk you likely get some to leave and the others put in the best month’s worth of their lives.

I personally only put people on pips when I want them to improve. Mixed results. The good ones improve and the bad ones can’t improve and they leave/fired. I’m always shocked that a few aren’t willing to actually do their work and would rather be fired, but it happens.

[Anonymous]

Look Goldman always fired bottom 5 percent each year

Deadwood gets pruned.

Fine, but they should be honest about it and just fire them. Telling employees to "do these things so that you can stay employed" and then firing them anyway is just a waste of time and effort for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Look Goldman always fired bottom 5 percent each year

Deadwood gets pruned.

Fine, but they should be honest about it and just fire them. Telling employees to "do these things so that you can stay employed" and then firing them anyway is just a waste of time and effort for everyone.

Ok harpie. “But THEY SHOUUUUUULLLLDD “ Go harp on another thread. You’re making your rounds today…..

[Anonymous]

Oh dear, have they not been ruining the world quickly enough?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look Goldman always fired bottom 5 percent each year

Deadwood gets pruned.

Amazon does the bottom 10% and its all subjective on who or why you are at the bottom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Look Goldman always fired bottom 5 percent each year

Deadwood gets pruned.

Fine, but they should be honest about it and just fire them. Telling employees to "do these things so that you can stay employed" and then firing them anyway is just a waste of time and effort for everyone.

They have to pay unemployment. So, that's a lot for 3000 employees. Employees know and it at least gives them time to job search and get out, which is what they are hoping but you are better off holding out and trying to get severance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Look Goldman always fired bottom 5 percent each year

Deadwood gets pruned.

Fine, but they should be honest about it and just fire them. Telling employees to "do these things so that you can stay employed" and then firing them anyway is just a waste of time and effort for everyone.

They have to pay unemployment. So, that's a lot for 3000 employees. Employees know and it at least gives them time to job search and get out, which is what they are hoping but you are better off holding out and trying to get severance.

DP. Yes all of us in business know this is the game. But you are explaining it to an idiot PP who is utterly clueless and wants to live in the utopia land of rainbows unicorns and corporate pension plans from 1960

[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.

<4th-5th year BIGLAW associate has now entered the chat>

[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.

At my company they get severance. They can choose to perform on the PIP (try to improve and keep their job) or to opt out right away, but either way they get 60 days continued salary + severance afterwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Word is many em’s at mck are only on 40% utilization right now

In English, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just do a layoff?

Bad press and severance.

It's better to announce you have 3,000 poor performers attending client needs?

They aren’t being staffed on engagements right now

How can they improve then? I know the point is for them to leave but it seems that leaving is the only option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Idk you likely get some to leave and the others put in the best month’s worth of their lives.

I personally only put people on pips when I want them to improve. Mixed results. The good ones improve and the bad ones can’t improve and they leave/fired. I’m always shocked that a few aren’t willing to actually do their work and would rather be fired, but it happens.

Your strategy only works if there is enough work to go around. The mass pip is because work has dried up. It’s cruel to put someone on a pip and then not actually give them the work they need to succeed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Word is many em’s at mck are only on 40% utilization right now

Does that mean a full-time salary but no hourly basis?