The Role of Management Consulting In Destruction of the Middle Class

[TwiceHorn 31272]

Fascinating article in The Atlantic.  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/how-mckinsey-destroyed-middle-class/605878/

[Parliament 14134]

Without reading that I'm gonna say consultants ruin everything.

[Pescado_Rojo 19331]

Consulting: If you can’t offer a solution, there’s good money in prolonging the problem.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

Excellent article, thanks.  Although they really should have included this picture.

Edited February 4, 2020 by Judge Roybeanbag

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Excellent article, thanks.  Although they really should have included this picture.

Well... problem solved ............. from this side of the table.

[SydneyCarton 47876]

What a depressing read, but a good one. Thanks. 

[Parliament 14134]

Companies have gotten so GOOD at driving out inefficiency, they're causing these problems.  I'm not a fan of making laws to fix this, but maybe shame and activism will push them the other way?  We're seeing some of that in getting companies to add women to their boards and do more for the climate.

As far as the salaries of the top 0.01%, that's also driven by the "cult of personality" leaders like Jobs/Musk/etc.  But in at least a few cases, they may be worth all that money.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

Here's the thing, though.  We assume that "inefficiency" is removed when one person takes the job of two or three.  From a pure cost perspective, that may be accurate, depending on the salary of the one person compared to the two or three.

But there are probably benefits to "distributed" management over "concentrated" management.  I believe the Japanese system prides itself on distributed management, and the Germans, too, to some degree.

Probably the most interesting part of the article to me is the limitation on advancement.  We/I often lament the absence of jobs for "morons," the unskilled and undereducated.  But, possibly worse is the fact that some of those folks are actually quite talented and now they have little or no opportunity to advance.

Edited February 4, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Anastasis 23395]

1 hour ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Consulting: If you can’t offer a solution, there’s good money in prolonging the problem making it 10x worse.

 

[Parliament 14134]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's the thing, though.  We assume that "inefficiency" is removed when one person takes the job of two or three.  From a pure cost perspective, that may be accurate, depending on the salary of the one person compared to the two or three.

But there are probably benefits to "distributed" management over "concentrated" management.  I believe the Japanese system prides itself on distributed management, and the Germans, too, to some degree.

Probably the most interesting part of the article to me is the limitation on advancement.  We/I often lament the absence of jobs for "morons," the unskilled and undereducated.  But, possibly worse is the fact that some of those folks are actually quite talented and now they have little or no opportunity to advance.

Tell me more about "distributed management."

[Incredulity 11564]

3 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Tell me more about "distributed management."

 

"Should we have the trash picked up on Tuesday, or Wednesday?"

"I think Thursday would be ideal"

"Well, Accounting would like trash to be every other week"

"Are these round or square trash cans"

"We need a PO issued for Triangular cans"

etc

etc

etc

[TwiceHorn 31272]

8 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Tell me more about "distributed management."

One aspect of the article is that, at one time, most employees "up and down the chain" had management responsibility and job descriptions didn't differ hugely among "levels" of employees or "direct reports" as I think is the common terminology.  I call that, or maybe the article does, "distributed" management.

McKinsey, and mgmt consulting more broadly, created the notion of management specialists so that one manager was responsible for a large number of underlings, who have little or no management responsibility.  This permeates organizations, but is most conspicuous at the top.  I call that "concentrated" management.

 

Edited February 4, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I believe the Japanese system prides itself on distributed management, and the Germans, too, to some degree.

Whose side are you on, son?

[TwiceHorn 31272]

Also, I can't help but think of and draw a parallel to technocrats like McNamara in government.  Some benefits, also some drawbacks.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Whose side are you on, son?

Our side, sir.  Just trying to jump on the home team and come in for the big win. So no one takes a giant shit on me.

[David Dennison 18656]

1 hour ago, Parliament said:

Without reading that I'm gonna say consultants ruin everything.

Every management consulting firm in this country should be blasted into the sun.

[hayden_horn 11360]

interesting article. 

putting the gig economy aside, when you look at employers with good reputations - they allow vertical advancement from the lowest of levels.

take heb as an example. i know they aren't public (so i guess you could use starbucks as well), but i've lived in the 48 for 15-20 years now. i've seen the heb at slaughter/manchaca "grow up" if you will. the employees are cheerful, and i've seen some of the younger checkers become managers. there is room in that company to go from bagging groceries to some kind of management, and the whole thing is like a little town. i also know some people who have been managers who have then moved up to corporate. they really reward loyalty. again, i know it's a family run business, but they are also wildly successful by most metrics, including employee satisfaction.

what corporations miss is that by maximizing profit, maybe they are not maximizing profit. this quarter's earnings do not necessarily reflect long-term opportunity.

[JimmyJames 12271]

You’re out of line, Gecko!!

[TwiceHorn 31272]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Every management consulting firm in this country should be blasted into the sun.

In a rocket with hash browns and whiskey?

[Incredulity 11564]

5 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

interesting article. 

putting the gig economy aside, when you look at employers with good reputations - they allow vertical advancement from the lowest of levels.

take heb as an example. i know they aren't public (so i guess you could use starbucks as well), but i've lived in the 48 for 15-20 years now. i've seen the heb at slaughter/manchaca "grow up" if you will. the employees are cheerful, and i've seen some of the younger checkers become managers. there is room in that company to go from bagging groceries to some kind of management, and the whole thing is like a little town. i also know some people who have been managers who have then moved up to corporate. they really reward loyalty. again, i know it's a family run business, but they are also wildly successful by most metrics, including employee satisfaction.

what corporations miss is that by maximizing profit, maybe they are not maximizing profit. this quarter's earnings do not necessarily reflect long-term opportunity.

Yeah, but Jack Welch said fire the bottom 10% every year...

[hayden_horn 11360]

10 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Yeah, but Jack Welch said fire the bottom 10% every year...

jack welch is a big reason why working for a corporation blows chunks

edited to note: he did fix some things, but he also broke things bigly, and was the beneficiary of the 1980s stock market.

Edited February 4, 2020 by hayden_horn

[Nice Guy Eddie 13412]

Modern firms put profits above all else.  Friedman doctrine. People become extremely expendable in that model especially if the govt stands back and allows it with few or zero penalties.

This is partly what Yang is arguing must be addressed. We will soon have more and more people in the US who are unemployable, at least in terms of steady work. Some Americans feel entitled to option of having a good job/career. That is disappearing quickly for many. 

You can blame those individuals for failing to plan for a good life, but it doesn't stop the fact that they're unemployed and mad about it.  Coalminers are a great example. They're struggling to accept that the nation has basically dictated that we want cheaper (natural gas) or clean (renewable) energy. And for the coal that is still mined, the modern tech requires fewer people.  Ultimately you're not going to retrain them to be coders or nurses. A certain number of them are effectively done with their career without hope of options.

[Rougarou 594]

As a hardo who has been in-and-around consulting and private equity for a while, I'll reserve judgment until I read the article, but I will say that in my experience most people on the internet are pretty ignorant of management consulting and strategy (and banking/high finance) yet are quick to opine. 

If you are anti-capitalism (modern American capitalism, especially), then I get why you'd knee jerk to hating the profession from a political perspective however-- which I totally relate to and get it. ^^ Nice Guy Eddie beat me to it and it's one of the reasons I'm a huge Yang fan (No CR)

Edited February 4, 2020 by Rougarou

[Rougarou 594]

4 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

interesting article. 

putting the gig economy aside, when you look at employers with good reputations - they allow vertical advancement from the lowest of levels.

take heb as an example. i know they aren't public (so i guess you could use starbucks as well), but i've lived in the 48 for 15-20 years now. i've seen the heb at slaughter/manchaca "grow up" if you will. the employees are cheerful, and i've seen some of the younger checkers become managers. there is room in that company to go from bagging groceries to some kind of management, and the whole thing is like a little town. i also know some people who have been managers who have then moved up to corporate. they really reward loyalty. again, i know it's a family run business, but they are also wildly successful by most metrics, including employee satisfaction.

what corporations miss is that by maximizing profit, maybe they are not maximizing profit. this quarter's earnings do not necessarily reflect long-term opportunity.

The article talks about what you are describing, the "Mail room to Corner office". I think the snap occurred because of many breaks in the old rubber-band, but mostly the mobility of the worker due to a rise in population and the demise of the corporate pension plan and unions. To your points about rewarding loyalty; I think the toothpaste is out of the tube with regards to corporate loyalty. Corporations (the rule, not the exception) don't want it and we don't want to give it, because doing so is usually a losing proposition in the long run. 

Overall I think the article did a better job when and of raising questions rather then when tried to land an answer. When the article went into lamentations for an era long passed when WWII boom artificially gave birth to a middle class and, ironically, a bloat of middle management which consist of people that carry a high, negative, fully-blended cost (benefits, insurance, taxes, salary, etc.) against the value they add. These middle managers we all make fun of and that we all think of as worthless and inefficient (until we read articles like this, and don't). Maybe it was the references to to "mid-century" and I kept thinking of Brady Bunch furniture, but It felt very nostalgic for even before WWII for a time when a Protestant work ethic and, an "honest days labor for an honest day's work" and other management strategies and practices from when business and management was first an area of study, were the rule of the day.

[Tuco 5076]

Two separate issues: 

1. Do consulting management companies really provide the best path to better efficiencies?

- Depends on the consulting company, and who they are consulting.  While I think there is a tendency for some execs to fascinated with pretty charts and outside opinions, of people that really don't know anything about the actual business.  On the other hand, there are plenty of companies still stuck in the 80s who need an outside, qualified perspective. It's such a case by case basis, to me, it's not that interesting to discuss.  

2. Does better efficiency outweigh the effects on the general public? 

- I believe that a company doesn't decide best practices, the market does.  Individual companies only make the decisions that determine whether they will continue to be part of the market.  Evolve or die.  My early career was in manufacturing in the 90s, and was mentored by people who got their asses kicked by the Japanese in the 70s and 80s.  The plant I was at had once employed 7000 people, and was below 2000 in 1994.  Now it's a warehouse.  This is the shitty reality, but heaven help the employees of the company who refuses to acknowledge it. I don't blame companies striving for better efficiencies.  There is really little choice. 

I do believe the government has a role in slowing that evolution, minimizing the effects on the workers and the communities.  Applied across the domestic makers, it doesn't put any particular company at a disadvantage for softening the blow. But at some point, evolution is inevitable. 

Which brings us to the "star trek future."  What happens when we just don't need everyone working?  That where universal income models start to make sense. Certainly universal healthcare already does.

 

[Dbeasy 14968]

Coming out of grad school McKinsey was trying to get me to interview with them for a job. I fit their profile apparently. At that time I had no idea who they were. Anyway, I went to a reception the night before the interview to meet the McKinsey team. About 45 minutes into the reception I was so disgusted by the arrogance of the McKinsey people I walked out and cancelled my interview. Of course months later I learned how much those guys make. Ouch.

[freyguy 4245]

Without reading the article, fuck McKinsey.  And any other consulting company of similar ilk for that matter.  Their solutions wag the dog, instead of attacking the opportunity.  They take your organization's ideas, repackage them as their own, and walk away with a big fat check after they've proposed their number.  And those who are left, remain to sift thru the dead bodies and figure out how to keep things running.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

My Dad was director of public relations at Texas' oldest "tech" company.  For most of their existence, they had little or no public identity because they didn't make consumer products, but they made lots of things inside consumer products, as well as being a large defense contractor.

Despite not being a "consumer-facing" company, my Dad counseled upper management that they needed to develop a public identity, whatever it was, and they had lots of positives to rely on to do so.

About 10-15 years into his tenure, they hired McKinsey and spent a million dollars on review of multiple facets of their business.  In the PR arena, they told upper management that they needed to develop a public identity.  They never really have.

[ndawg 1242]

American executives are usually spineless cowards pretending to be superheroes, and companies like McKinsey are paid to lend their legitimacy to those executives. By the time things go south with a consultant firm, the executive sponsor has already leveraged their position into a vertical move. It's a tidy little arrangement that works out most of the time. And what happens after that? A new executive gets to sponsor a new consulting firm to come clean up the mess.

[HRSchenker 2259]

Consultants are like pigeons. They fly in, shit everywhere on everything, and fly out.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13412]

Many middle manager roles are no longer needed in many cases. Think about a manufacturing company that accepts custom orders from customers. A few decades ago, that would take design, accounting, planning, and operation managers all putting their heads together to cost, schedule and manage the build. While I know that work still occurs, you have 1-2 specialists that know how to input the data into the an ERP that spits out that info within seconds.

And as that article pointed out, when you drop the middle managers, there cannot be much upward mobility. You're not going to be promoted from Sarge to 4-star general. End up with the haves, the have-nots, and the zeroes.

If anything the consulting companies are just helping to accelerate an inevitable end game: Companies want contractors or service providers that can be plugged in as needed. Might be more expensive in the short term but you can unplug them a lot cheaper than employees.

if you want to succeed in corp america today, learn how to be a vendor manager. They may end up being the last employees left alongside the CEO.

[DalTxHornFan 3085]

11 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Many middle manager roles are no longer needed in many cases. Think about a manufacturing company that accepts custom orders from customers. A few decades ago, that would take design, accounting, planning, and operation managers all putting their heads together to cost, schedule and manage the build. While I know that work still occurs, you have 1-2 specialists that know how to input the data into the an ERP that spits out that info within seconds.

 

 

[Rougarou 594]

1 hour ago, Tuco said:

Two separate issues: 

1. Do consulting management companies really provide the best path to better efficiencies?

- Depends on the consulting company, and who they are consulting.  While I think there is a tendency for some execs to fascinated with pretty charts and outside opinions, of people that really don't know anything about the actual business.  On the other hand, there are plenty of companies still stuck in the 80s who need an outside, qualified perspective. It's such a case by case basis, to me, it's not that interesting to discuss.  

2. Does better efficiency outweigh the effects on the general public? 

- I believe that a company doesn't decide best practices, the market does.  Individual companies only make the decisions that determine whether they will continue to be part of the market.  Evolve or die.  My early career was in manufacturing in the 90s, and was mentored by people who got their asses kicked by the Japanese in the 70s and 80s.  The plant I was at had once employed 7000 people, and was below 2000 in 1994.  Now it's a warehouse.  This is the shitty reality, but heaven help the employees of the company who refuses to acknowledge it. I don't blame companies striving for better efficiencies.  There is really little choice. 

I do believe the government has a role in slowing that evolution, minimizing the effects on the workers and the communities.  Applied across the domestic makers, it doesn't put any particular company at a disadvantage for softening the blow. But at some point, evolution is inevitable. 

Which brings us to the "star trek future."  What happens when we just don't need everyone working?  That where universal income models start to make sense. Certainly universal healthcare already does.

 

This is an amazing and thoughtful post. You must be an MBB guy.

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

Coming out of grad school McKinsey was trying to get me to interview with them for a job. I fit their profile apparently. At that time I had no idea who they were. Anyway, I went to a reception the night before the interview to meet the McKinsey team. About 45 minutes into the reception I was so disgusted by the arrogance of the McKinsey people I walked out and cancelled my interview. Of course months later I learned how much those guys make. Ouch.

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

4 hours ago, Rougarou said:

As a hardo who has been in-and-around consulting and private equity for a while, I'll reserve judgment until I read the article, but I will say that in my experience most people on the internet are pretty ignorant of management consulting and strategy (and banking/high finance) yet are quick to opine. 

If you are anti-capitalism (modern American capitalism, especially), then I get why you'd knee jerk to hating the profession from a political perspective however-- which I totally relate to and get it. ^^ Nice Guy Eddie beat me to it and it's one of the reasons I'm a huge Yang fan (No CR)

So does that “most people on the internet are ignorant yet quick to opine” remark apply to yourself “hardo” or are you branding yourself as the exception?  If so you probably work for McKinsey or a similar outfit. I know the type. Let us know when you read the article. 

Yang is an interesting guy but basically as ignorant as the guy you are projecting yourself to be on this thread. Yang should run to be the president of a good reddit forum. Bet he’d win that one, easily. 

[atomheartbevo 89429]

6 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Yeah, but Jack Welch said fire the bottom 10% every year...

 

6 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

jack welch is a big reason why working for a corporation blows chunks

1234.  I worked for a very large tech company for around 10 years, that employed such personnel review methods, albeit they called it a different name.  At times, you would lay out yearly goals, and you would be judged by them, which was stupid in and of itself, since your project could change multiple times based on your customers.  It was Office Space personified, and fucking appropriate that they filmed a few scenes from Office Space right in front of some of our buildings (the opening traffic scene for one).  

You would be ranked on a scale of 1-4, and somebody would have to be ranked at the bottom.  There was no getting around it.  When you ended up on a new project, at various times, you'd look at the other folks not as your co-workers, teammates, etc., but as "okay, who is going to be given a 1, 2, 3, or 4, and am I going to have to kiss a lot more ass, and when such-and-such is let go, am I going to have to pick up his or her work?"  You did not want to be on a team of high-performers, because when the time came for management to give somebody a lower performance review, if you had a bunch of all-stars on your team, the reviews were going to be arbitrary and just based on whoever the managers personally liked the most, and/or whose jobs would be the hardest to fill/replace.   

I had managers who would deliberately take on people right out of college, or who they knew would most likely be the lowest-performing members on the team, just so it was easier for them to hand out the poor performance reviews.  And if you had a very technical team, and had a couple of tech writers on it, they were most likely fucked, I swear we went through a lot of tech writers, because they were seen as easy to replace.

And the flip side to that, was that once the people who were seen as expendable and easily replaced by management, realized they were expendable, they had one foot out the door and were already working to transfer to other divisions/locations, or interviewing with outside companies, so then we had to deal with new hires a lot more than we should have, which would slow us down.

It's been 10 years since I worked there, and 95% of the people I worked with moved on to other tech companies, startups, or started their own companies.   The review process/office politics was ridiculous, and that company held on to it for far too long.

Hell, some people I worked with left the company and came back as contractors, making more money in some cases, doing nearly the same jobs, and without much of the office politics bullshit.

Edited February 4, 2020 by atomheartbevo

[Upgrayedd 5805]

Dude has a male cat.  Every night, he lets Tom out to go do what Tom likes to do- screw.

One night, a buddy suggests that Tom should be fixed.  It’s the responsible thing to do really.  So Tom gets fixed.

Some time later same buddy is back over the first time, and Tom gets let out to go do his thing.

”Hey.  I thought you had Tom fixed?”

”I did.  Now he is a consultant.”

[F250 28682]

1 hour ago, HRSchenker said:

Consultants are like pigeons. They fly in, shit everywhere on everything, and fly out.

This is probably true. I consulted (infosec) for a few years and my first objective with a client was to shit over every internal process they had and then fill the CIO/CSO with fear. The key to getting them to believe in you, was charging a lot of money. Higher consultant rates actually made the executives more malleable to suggestions. Great work if you can find it.

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

My Dad was director of public relations at Texas' oldest "tech" company.  For most of their existence, they had little or no public identity because they didn't make consumer products, but they made lots of things inside consumer products, as well as being a large defense contractor.

Despite not being a "consumer-facing" company, my Dad counseled upper management that they needed to develop a public identity, whatever it was, and they had lots of positives to rely on to do so.

About 10-15 years into his tenure, they hired McKinsey and spent a million dollars on review of multiple facets of their business.  In the PR arena, they told upper management that they needed to develop a public identity.  They never really have.

Tracor?  

Just curious.  While the article has a lot of interesting points and observations, I think the most important one and the most difficult to solve is the decoupling of management from the business, and the tunnel vision focus on short term profits at the expense of long term business health.  

[TwiceHorn 31272]

Texas Instruments.

[Jeffrey 90]

American executives are usually spineless cowards pretending to be superheroes, and companies like McKinsey are paid to lend their legitimacy to those executives. By the time things go south with a consultant firm, the executive sponsor has already leveraged their position into a vertical move. It's a tidy little arrangement that works out most of the time. And what happens after that? A new executive gets to sponsor a new consulting firm to come clean up the mess.

This is so spot on its scary... exact thing is going to happen on a project I'm doing with McKinsey right now.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Texas Instruments.

Ah, that was actually my first guess but you made the comment about them not making consumer products.  I guess before the calculator that was true.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

10 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Ah, that was actually my first guess but you made the comment about them not making consumer products.  I guess before the calculator that was true.

Digital watches for a while too.  Calculators have always been an oddball business for them.  It's almost like a charitable endeavor to support education.

From the calculator business, you'd never figure it was a 10 billion/year company.  Revenue from the segment doesn't even get a mention in the annual report.

Edited February 5, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Digital watches for a while too.  Calculators have always been an oddball business for them.  It's almost like a charitable endeavor to support education.

From the calculator business, you'd never figure it was a 10 billion/year company.

I just remember when I moved here in the early 80s, driving out 183 to go to Lago Vista, and seeing the plant thinking hey that’s where calculators come from, and seeing Glastron and thinking wow that’s where all those boats are made!  Was impressive to a 17 year old from the boonies. 

[TwiceHorn 31272]

13 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I just remember when I moved here in the early 80s, driving out 183 to go to Lago Vista, and seeing the plant thinking hey that’s where calculators come from, and seeing Glastron and thinking wow that’s where all those boats are made!  Was impressive to a 17 year old from the boonies. 

The whole calculator and watch deal, which came about in the 70s at about the same time, presented kind of a conundrum for my Dad.  It was kind of an obvious opportunity to build a "brand," but was not representative of the core business of the company.  Dad wanted to do something centered around Jack Kilby and the invention of the integrated circuit, which they did kind of do after he retired.

[JimmyJames 12271]

35 minutes ago, Jeffrey said:

This is so spot on its scary... exact thing is going to happen on a project I'm doing with McKinsey right now.
 

Its a good scam if you can get it. 

Seems to work for them. Props to capitalism, greed is good, etc etc., at its finest. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Like many here for most of my life I had never heard of McKinsey consulting. My first brush with them came with dealing with State Farm insurance.

Apparently State Farm in the 80’s decided at some point its insurance adjusters were paying out too much in claims and hired McKinsey consulting to consult on the matter. McKinsey determined, how exactly was unknown, was that State Farm adjuster, being actual human beings with decision making capabilities,  were paying out too much in claims which they termed “leakage.” 

Basically “leakage” meant that McKinsey determined that State Farm was paying out too much in claims because its adjusters I guess were somehow not efficient enough in determining the amounts to be paid. What made McKinsey an expert on evaluating claims will always remain an unknown. But basically it mean that what they were paying was too much and needed to be less.

This had the ultimate effect of harming millions of both policy holders and people with legitimate claims. It did increase insurance company profits, however, by allowing them to invest the premiums paid by policyholders by making the insurance companies more money at the expense of both the policyholders who got sued and the claimants with legitimate claims. So McKinsey,  I guess, did what it thought its job was to do. 

State Farm focus grouped the matter and found that normal people thought this was kind of evil bullshit so they did whatever they could with legislatures, tort reform, propaganda, etc. to minimize the effect of its presumed eventual disclosure, which thanks to our corporate controlled mass media, never really came. Saved State Farm countless billions of dollars at the expense of its policyholders and claimants. This from a supposed policyholder mutual insurance owned company. 

Just another small example of what’s been going on in this country over the last forty years. Multiply that billions by a few million examples and you can figure out what’s gone wrong in this country. 

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2630]

What a good yet horrible read. Thanks 

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

We had Boston Consulting come through years ago with a couple of whiz bang fresh out of grad school hot shots.  I won’t lie, they were smart as hell, lot smarter than any of us but they had no idea how the real world worked.  At the end of their assignment they put together a real fancy presentation but when you sifted through the bullshit it boiled down to “In order to grow profits the organization needs to increase revenues and cut costs.”. Gee, thanks for the brilliant insight, Achmed.

One positive was Ms. Sunile was pretty decent looking (solid surly 7)and had a nice rack.  I got to tap that ass before they moved on to their next goat rope.

[Stunns38 3357]

I have limited experience with McKinsey. They must use the bottom of the barrel consultants for their government division. Their recommendations and processes were worse than the ones the government employees came up with.

[Rougarou 594]

Speaking of TI, and to tie a post back to the OP again and get the discussion back on track, I had a friend who worked with them in the early 90’s and he was tapped for their leadership rotation program. They Invested in him and sent him to get his MBA, and taught him the business. He made his first million through stock accrued throughout the 90’s but even still he capped out at VP of something or another in yet another version of “up or out”. Those leadership programs start with, say 100 guys in a cohort and you end up with a handful after half a dozen years. Something like that. So even in old school big companies it’s not the janitor or mailroom guy being tapped for these internal promotions and programs but the young rockstars.

Organizations aren’t really investing in people like that anymore which a) hurts loyalty but also b) even when they are it’s not a very attractive option for people when being mobile and transient in your career is a way to short circuit very lucrative pay raises (as opposed to toiling away from years with a 5% bump every year).

I was offered an interview spot for a Leadership Executive Accelerated program and declined because I feel like you’d be pot committed at that point and stuck in a hierarchy of middle managers (a good thing according to days gone by and the author of the article) but in reality who wants to work in a bureaucratic environment and who wants to wait out a claw back period or have to have a company buy you out?