That sounds like a cult.

McK is so cringe right now:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-29/mckinsey-chief-seeks-to-pump-up-partner-morale-with-rap-and-rock

"McKinsey & Co. sought to rally its partners with upbeat declarations and blasts of rock and rap music in Copenhagen earlier this month, attempting to boost morale during a tumultuous period for the giant consulting firm."

"The musical soundtrack included a selection of hits from pop artists including American rapper Eminem and singer Bob Marley. “Tubthumping” by former British rock bank Chumbawamba was also played, with its signature lyrics: “I get knocked down, but I get up again. You are never gonna keep me down.”

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

I like you.

I worked in consulting you need to sell, do the worst jobs, jobs with tons of travel, or have a god father to protect you.

I could sell, so went that route.

The people who hit non charge codes in good times and claimed doing business development, updating methodology, doing CPEs, sales calls, internal training acting as an internal SME were first to go in bad times.

We house cleaned in 2000 after Y2K and stock market crash and again in 2001 after 9-11 and a little more in early 2002.

This is normal. I got a really good promotion in late 2003 as 1/2 my competition from 2000 was gone.

It is a cyclical business.

Other consulting firms are giving McKinsey serious competition and gaining their business because clients aren't mentally stuck on them, kind of like college admissions game where people are realizing value of non-ivy T20 schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the low utilization a McK issue b/c recent scandals or peer consultancies too?

Wondering this as well. 10 years ago I had at least some respect for them and people who work there. Not so right now. I would give the side eye to any business or agency that hired them.

Management consultants could sell themselves a lot easier when large companies where run by engineers or the original founders. Now every potential clients is overflowing with MBAs who took the same classes and read the same books and attended the same seminars and trainings as the consultants. Why pay a fortune for something that you can do cheaper in house?

Douchebags.

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

Recently heard this gem: "leveling down"

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Mck still pays severance after the pip. That is not the reason at all. Reason is to leave time for people to leave and everyone can stay friends. It happens more often than you think. People appreciate the warning. Become clients.

McKinsey pays HALF the severance after PIP. PIP also serves as reason to void certain deferred comp.

The way even the no name firms handle this is to tell people you have 6 months to look. Then they lay them off with severance if they are unfortunate enough to not have landed a job. McKinsey employees are being laid off due to slow down in business or goal of increasing margins by cutting expense. These people are the cream of the crop and have been with McKinsey for years, they did not just suddenly become poor performers. It's a vile practice to subject people to such psychological stress over things they have no control of.

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.

Mck still pays severance after the pip. That is not the reason at all. Reason is to leave time for people to leave and everyone can stay friends. It happens more often than you think. People appreciate the warning. Become clients.

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?

Why? You are an at will employee. They could fire you any time for no reason and you have no recourse.

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.

No. You can lay people off with an effective date of 5-6 months from now. Gives them plenty of time to look for alternate employment without the incredible stress and ostracizing of a PIP.

McKinsey is ruthless anyways, it's a $ play.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just do a layoff?

It’s bad for the brand

They did do some layoffs but mbb doesn’t like to straight up layoff peeps

Right, because articles in all major Financial newspapers about mass PIPs are better for the brand than layoffs.

Reasons for PIPs:

- No need to pay large severances or some deferred comp
- Get a huge amount of labor from people working like mad to stay put while they look for next role
- Dog whistle of the ruling class - this is how they signal to other employers to tighten up the leash on employees.

Anonymous wrote:Is the low utilization a McK issue b/c recent scandals or peer consultancies too?

Wondering this as well. 10 years ago I had at least some respect for them and people who work there. Not so right now. I would give the side eye to any business or agency that hired them.

https://t.co/fwGw7kYn3t

Both uk and us staff even if they are “in good standing” are being given up to 9 months “on search”/“counseled out”

As a prior poster said, em utilization was really low so lo and behold:

“ The latest offer will be made to “engagement managers”, the firm’s project managers who oversee consultants while they are on client work, and “associate partners”, who are tasked with winning new work for the firm.
Sources at the firm said that the approach was also meant to counter low “attrition”, the rate at which workers quit. ”