McKinsey putting 3000 staffers on pip

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Easy, bc you are not the same race as the rest of the team!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Easy, bc you are not the same race as the rest of the team!

It has nothing to do with race, usually it's your salary or other reasons. They can hire employees in other countries for a lot less so they are building up that and firing US employees. Or, hiring younger, not as qualified folks at a much smaller salary. Most don't last more than two years so if you are there longer at some point they will get rid of you. They don't value knowledge or skill. Its all about money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I’m not an HR attorney but honestly, putting someone on a pip and firing them for reasons outside of their control seems really illegal?

[Anonymous]

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

If this is true, that’s a really low utilization, business is that bad?

[Anonymous]

Ironic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I’m not an HR attorney but honestly, putting someone on a pip and firing them for reasons outside of their control seems really illegal?

This is really common now. It's to avoid paying severance and unemployment. It should be illegal but you'd have to sue and prove it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like companies are laying people off yet using a different term to describe the layoffs.

Pretty common. They don't want the stink of financial incompetence and poor planning to become apparent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I’m not an HR attorney but honestly, putting someone on a pip and firing them for reasons outside of their control seems really illegal?

This is really common now. It's to avoid paying severance and unemployment. It should be illegal but you'd have to sue and prove it.

Is there law that prevents employers from creating a hostile work environment even when there’s no EEO issue?

Just seems like you should be able to sure when an employer engages in behavior designed to put psychological stress on you so you will quit instead of having to pay you what you’re owed.

[Anonymous]

Constructive termination no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

You can be put on a pedestal one day and rub someone the wrong way and now you are suddenly on the bottom. They don’t even tell you you are on a PIP.

[Anonymous]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Did McKinsey put J1 J2 J3 guy in charge?

They should have! My daughters friend from an average state school who looks like a combo straight Ricky Martin or Mario Lopez they hired out of a four year average state school in 2022 for a $120,000 starting salary as he was a D&I candidate. His coworkers were all Tall Lacrosse Bros or fancy schools mommy and daddy paid for.

Way over paying for no experience talent.

Your daughter could have easily been one as well. The nerve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

If this is true, that’s a really low utilization, business is that bad?

Astonishingly low. I was in this world and knew the axe was going to fall with anything less than 120% utilization. More than 3 days on the bench? Expect to be out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They can't, that's the conundrum. This is 100% work drying up and looking at the middle management (the people wondering about their college kids have unfounded fears, that pipeline is both strong and CHEAP) for layoffs. It's...probably shortsighted (usually is from a client delivery standpoint!) but the stakeholders must be appeased. How can someone in this improve? LEAVE! Go to your clients and get out of this shitshow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

You can be put on a pedestal one day and rub someone the wrong way and now you are suddenly on the bottom. They don’t even tell you you are on a PIP.

Might happen but shouldn't... I've never seen this.

/Amazon Manager and former Mckinsey and Big4