It’s completely demoralizing seeing junior McKinsey types—who have never spent a day in the trenches—making high-stakes cuts. Honestly, having seen it firsthand, I wouldn't be shocked if their playbook is just: protect the fellow Wharton MBAs with cushy VP titles, and sacrifice the salt-of-the-earth talent with less fancy degrees.
6 replies (most recent on top)
@dy which directors and vp’s are former mck?
It will be interesting to see if they cut certain executive directors and VPs that are former mck
@a5 nailed it.
The purpose of McKinsey and other Big Management Consulting Firms is not to build better businesses. It is to protect the execs who approve paying their invoices. McKinsey's greatest asset is their brand and decades of past projects they can tap into. When the board is told, "McKinsey said..." they all nod sagely and raise their hands to vote "aye" on whatever is recommended... which often is what lower level employees were trying to get through six levels of execs avoiding anything risky for months and years.
It's a con, but so is most of the business world.
It's really about top execs who politicked their way to the top protecting themselves and their egos and their paychecks and bonuses, and everyone at those levels are in on it.
Companies have bold missions and visions that really mean nothing, and execs --particularly in end-stage companies like Comcast-- aren't just allergic to risk, they will actually suppress ideas and initiatives that consider reality and the competitive situations, as to do so might conflicts with the bullsh-t message they've spun up to Roberts and Watson and others that "everything is great!"... which they all want to believe.
Until the facts finally become undeniable, which is where we are now.
But the thing is, these guys have prolonged fat salaries and bonuses and grants for a decade or more. There's our "why." Shame on them. Shame on the Roberts family for their failure of doing their job and making sure these conmen like Fraser actually do their jobs. And I guess shame on all of us, too, for not finding a way to get these execs to operate in the interest of the company and our customers. And shame on me: I took the job here 10 years ago knowing we were near dead-last in the country for CSAT, figuring i could help with that. Everything I suggested was resisted and even suppressed; the company just didn't care, and doing x might cost y and by doing x we admit there is an issue, and our monopoly kept the money coming in. That I personally expected leaders to give a sh*t about anything like improving our business... well... that was stupid, I now recognize. Especially given how we've treated our customers. We have long been one of the most hated companies in the world. And justifiably so. What kind of leaders should we have expected when it's been like that for literally half a century?
@b9 I have never seen one laid off so you're lying
Wharton MBA. I am not protected either. We are all in same boat.
Salt of the earth here. Not sure why this is even a question. Yes, of course.Mission #1: protect the board and upper levels of SLT, who most likely hired McKinsey in the 1st place. McKinsey both justifies the changes AND removes blame for the SLT/Board.