McKinsey: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
My takes as an ex McKinsey consultant:
- McK, deservedly, should be dragged through the mud and cough up significant penalties / fines for many of these terrible projects they worked on (Purdue, Saudi Arabia, etc.). I wouldn't be opposed to jail time in the right circumstance with evidence, though that never seems to happen in America (hell, the Sackler family is still at large enjoying their fortune).
- That being said, the years I spent there were pretty boring on the scandal side, as it was for all of my peers. 99% of projects are fairly uncontroversial, unless you consider things like cost cutting and layoffs controversial. The other 1% can be quite damning - Juul, Purdue, etc. but it's far from typical.
- Can we stop pretending this is a McKinsey thing? I get that it's traditionally the most 'prestigious' consulting firm, and their typical inclination to secrecy makes it a target (rightfully so in the modern age), but how many other banks, law firms, investment firms, accounting firms etc. etc. have worked with tobacco companies, Saudi Arabia, gun manufacturers, polluters and so on? Take a look at this year's Davos in the Desert - every single prestigious finance firm is represented by its CEO (not even just some delegate).
This is a capitalism / regulation problem at its core - you can't expect professional services firms to always regulate themselves to the highest of ethical standards. McKinsey has made egregious missteps, but it's far from the only one. Just the one that John Oliver happened to spotlight here.
That being said, love me some good John Oliver!
I feel McKinsey has become the figurehead of the current, late-stage / mba culture capitalism that we are currently in.
Where companies have become conglomerates to the point that individual employees are represented by an individual cell within Excel. Also consumers be dammed, as long as they continue to consume.
Personally; as I identify as a capitalist, let’s not forget
-Adam Smith “The Wealth of Nations”
I think what also differentiates McKinsey and other consulting firms from the banks/lawyers/investment firms working for this industries is that consulting provides the strategy, or the plan of how to do the nefarious things. Lawyers banks and investment firms certainly enable some of the bad things these clients are doing, but they’re not giving them a roadmaps on how to do it with perfectly aligned graphics in PPT.
The banks and lawyers are selling them a gun, consultants are telling them where to aim and when to shoot. None of its good, but at least with banks and lawyers there’s some thinly veiled ignorance they can claim.
Consulting firms (McKinsey or otherwise) most certainly DO NOT “provide the strategy”. No one who has ever worked in MBB consulting would even think that.
Um, okay then what would you argue they provide? Bc essentially you’re trying to argue that the advice they provide is not the same as providing strategy.
Consultant definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consultant#:~:text=noun,%3A%20one%20who%20consults%20another
Define society.
A very fair and balanced answer.
How are layoffs not controversial? Widespread layoffs like we have today weren’t really a thing before the 60s when Jack Welch came onto the scene. Consultants suggesting that companies lay off their workforce or outsource or whatever is not helping the world out, it’s just furthering wealth inequality in our country.
As he also mentions: consultancies are often brought in to serve as an easy scapegoat. Another issue is the focus of (mainly American corporations, there is a clear culture difference) to focus on short term gains instead of long-term goals.
If your 'task' as a consultant is to create short-term gains, yes: reducing staffing is the easiest way to go. Ever noticed how lay-offs are often by the end of the fiscal year? And hirings often start very soon after? It's just a numbers game at some point: you need to hit certain results and if you can't do it in a sustainable way and still want your bonus, you have to take such actions.
And this creates a lot of issues. This is basicly the premise of "The Big Con" (you can find summaries online) and I assume that book was a large basis for this LWT episode. Just like the book, it looks at it from the perspective that 'consultancies are evil', but they lack in the part as to WHY companies/governments/... don't invest in those capabilities themselves and why out-sourcing sometimes essential tasks to consultants has become the norm.
Consultancies don’t randomly “suggest” companies lay off their workforce or outsource and companies fall to their knees in awe.
The company is typically falling behind competitors and wants an analysis on why. Often that is because they have operating or profitability metrics that are lower than the relevant benchmark. How do you fix that - you look at the big buckets of cost and go through a decision tree on how to lower them. Surprise labor costs are a big bucket at most companies.
Alternatively - the company could continue to flounder and go out of business in a decade and EVERYONE loses their job
I bet that when the consultant companies themselves talk about the people working there or the people they are recruiting to wok there they are not framing them as costs.
What?
Well sometimes layoffs are necessary. Look at a lot of the recent tech ones. They expanded their workforce during Covid when their revenue was growing in an outlier period. Those companies honestly thought the exponential growth was the new norm so they hired more ppl as FTE rather than contractors. Then when their numbers started coming back down to Pre-covid levels they realized “oh crap, we have too much overhead. We need to do layoffs now”.
Be mad at the poor financial planners in those companies, not the consultants offering the obvious advice. This comes from someone in FP&A.
I work in big tech, so I know first hand that upper management is to blame for the layoffs because they hired recklessly. But the layoffs at big tech companies weren’t strictly speaking necessary: they were still profitable even with more employees than they felt they needed.
The real solution here is tech unions IMO so that it’s harder to do layoffs if there aren’t fundamental problems with the company. I think that would force companies to operate more sustainably instead of hiring a bunch of less qualified people and then doing layoffs 2 years later.
Strongly disagree about unions and I feel it’s now becoming a lazy solution. Unions have their place don’t get me wrong but it’s in industries that don’t have a lot of alternative options for work, I.e railroad workers, nfl players, firefighters, etc. Tech does not need unions (I’m also in tech at a billion dollar revenue company) because the ease of entry and exit is high.
A union would make it more difficult to get fired, but also to get hired in the first place.
The other issue is that tech workers aren't going to spend 35 years at the same company, so the incentives for forming a union are not even there in the first place.
I only sell illegal arms, narcotics, and contraband for 15~mins of my day ~ i.e. only 1%. The rest of my day is like TOTALLY legitimate. Can we stop pretending this is just a me thing, I mean so many other people sell illegal things like ALL THE TIME, like whatever 😒 ✋️ 🤮
It is a mckinsey thing in the sense that mckinsey has a reputation for not doing shit like this. But they did. This isn't as big a deal as Arthur Anderson shitting the bed, but it's close.
What's interesting is that McKinsey just lost pole position. Which is fine.
Yup pretty much all the ‘prestige’ firms are all a bunch of elitists just doing word salad with bags of shit!! And they all charge thousands an hr for that!!
Which you should, since that often incurs significant long-term organizational damage that leads to structural collapse years down the line.
As with all good projects, ‘it depends’ is an important piece of the answer here…
Yes but as a company you don't accidentally end up working for tobacco companies until 2021. Why not simply . . . not do that and then no one will say. anything about it?
I understand that many people have very normal clients and jobs. But this is a range of really weird assignments that so many people just went along with. I can't imagine being on that Rikers project and thinking "yes this is fine".
Curious. What percentage of your projects would you say had the objective of cost cutting and/or layoffs? A friend was telling me only 5% at MBB.
I’d say 1-2 projects over the course of my 3.5 years involved some form of layoffs, so 5% is a good estimate in my experience. They also involved layoffs, but that wasn’t a primary objective so much as a part of the outcome if that makes sense. E.g., this company’s structure is super updated and located in the middle of nowhere, how do we modernize -> probably need to move headcount or don’t need these divisions anymore at full headcount.
Also, even in those circumstances, the management team already essentially wanted to do those things. We were probably just a rubber stamp.
My experience is limited to one local office in one of the MBB, but I, probably naively, believe only McK's partner would do a Purdue-FDA thing. Not sure about the Saudi influecers thing though, the others would do it as well.
I also asked not to work on a Tobacco project and no-one said shit about it. They just moved me to another project.
My favorite comment on the video :
This reminds me of on old joke: A shepherd is tending his flock in a remote pasture when suddenly a shiny red BMW appears. The driver is a young man in an Armani suit, Ferragamo shoes and Polarized sunglasses. He sticks his head out the window and asks the shepherd, “Hey! If I can tell you how many sheep you have in your flock, will you give me one?” The shepherd looks at him, and agrees. The driver plugs his cell phone into a laptop and connects it to a GPS and starts a remote body-heat scan of the area. During the process he sends some e-mails. After receiving the answers, he prints a 100 page report on the portable printer in his glove compartment, and proudly announces to the shepherd: “You have exactly 1,478 sheep.” To which the shepherd answers: “Impressive. You can choose one sheep out of my flock”. He observes the man pick up an animal and load it into his car. Then the shepherd says: “If I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my animal?” “You’re on.” the young man answers. “You are a Mckinsey consultant,” says the shepherd promptly. “You are right! How could you possibly guess?” says the man, visibly surprised. “It wasn’t a guess,” the shepherd replies. “You drive into my field uninvited. You want me to pay you for a piece of information I already know, you answer questions I haven’t asked, and you know nothing about my business. Now give me back my dog.”
Haha dog bit is just perfect
I knew McKinsey previously consulted on both sides of the opioid crisis, but I didn’t know the same consultants worked on both. This scenario would not be nearly as bad if separate siloed teams with 0 contact ran the projects, but as is, the situation is super shady and gives horrendous optics to an already shady industry. It’s just another talking point people can add to their arsenal of consulting criticisms (which sucks because I personally think more often than not consultants do good for the world (not always, of course.))
The court docs are worth reading through, if only for a refresher on how lost in the sauce folks can get that they completely lose sight of what is and isn't a conflict of interest
McK didn’t lose sight. They knew, but the revenue was worth it.
Exactly. I haven’t watched the show yet, but let’s not pretend this is the first time that McK has had serious ethical issues in their practice. They put revenue front and center, and don’t really care about much beyond that.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - McK is long overdue for some serious sanctions.
John Oliver lays out a strong case that McK all but pulled the trigger helping KSA murder a dissident who happened to be an American permanent resident. TBH, they’re doing things that are contrary to U.S. national security interests and assisting terrorist regimes as an enabler. Shut them down and jail the leadership, especially the ones who jumped ship to Goldman in 2021 to avoid blowback.
Whose future politicians are prospective employees?
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaah it's a fucked up system
Comment deleted by user
Didn't get an offer, huh?
did it make money? if not, there is a conflict of interest.
Let’s call it what it was: trying to sell heroin to kids
I dont think the concern with the consulting industry is that they do more harm than good, it is more that there are no checks and balances at all.
There is no overarching organization (as such in Law, Architecture and other professions), that ensures some standards of practice and rules / policy and regulations to apply.
The concern (I think) is that it is an opaque industry, which has no rules of entry (except maybe a top school degree (in no specific field), and no rules of observation, and surveillance.
Other industries are barely mich better.
It took a Doctor from Ohio to claim on TV that Covid vaccines will magnetize you. This doctor would still be practicing if she simply did not go on TV!
Rudy Giuliani is still in the process of losing his law license 3 years after bringing bogus election cases to court.
The FAA let Boeing self certify their new plane design and only initiated a review after 2 crashes.
Law firms, unlike consulting firms, take conflicts of interest very seriously though due to strict regulation by law societies.
Good point.
Yeah I know a now-lawyer who passed a state’s bar exam and its “professional ethics” criteria even though you can Google his name and find an article where he assaulted someone else on a golf course. Very ethical, indeed!
So do you believe a singular assault conviction should prevent someone from ever becoming a lawyer? Like what a weird point to make.
That’s part of it. But I do see a lot of “how can a 22 year old possibly be a consultant? What could they possibly know?” without knowing what a 22 year old’s role is in the industry, or “consultants are leeches who simply extract value from their clients” without considering cost benefit analyses of in-housing a company’s strategy/operations.
That’s how it should be. It works well and doesn’t need additional governance/gatekeeping beyond what’s already there.
Such firewall, much profit, wow.
It won't be possible to be perfectly siloed. We expect too much or too little morality from them
why would it not be possible to be siloed.
Video at the end about people needing to belong to an exclusive group - damn that’s spot on
As an ex-consultant nothing else needed to convince me that the whole industry is a scam. Time and time again we took clients money and added absolutely no value.
Yup. Companies I’ve worked for have hired several consultants, all morons who gave terrible, uninformed advice that made everything worse.
Glad I saw this video, tells me I wasn’t crazy
what do you mean making presentations isnt value addition /s
https://www.reddit.com/r/consulting/comments/17axb4l/how_would_you_respond_to_those_who_claim/
Tell the people in this thread this lol
Off course they think that, that's how they make their money.
guess who else dont add value. Homeless opioid addicts.
So not only do these consultants not add value, but they are also facilitating making a chunk of the workforce similarly useless. Sweet.
thing is, different people/firms have different goals. You are optimizing on different things.
Yes, if I were a psychopath I’d probably identify that “I’m optimizing for different things” while actively causing harm to a huge swath of the population.
Hired to supporting an apartheid/autocratic regime? Just optimizing for a different objective function, baby!
I laughed so hard at this. This is some of the great stuff I've been missing from John the past few years.
He's absolutely right that this industry needs to be taking more heat for horrendous results. There are cases where they do add value and needed-organization, but also too many where they make the problem worse.
TIL that McKinsey indirectly may have caused an assassination
I don’t think it was indirectly or unintentionally
it was directly
In fact, it was a fresh MBA associate who pulled the trigger
Video locked for out of country
Comment deleted by user
Weird assumption
Sucks to be non-Canadian
"Firm" member spotted
Universal healthcare and never going to war (or only going to the ones that matter) is nice actually.
Except nowadays we have people dying in the ER waiting for treatment.
Get a VPN. It will help you mask your Geographical location
Just use a VPN
This is pure gold. Made me laugh a lot. And as an industry insider: there’s a lot of truth in this video
Industry insider is a weird way to say you’re one of them
Because he isn't and just wants to pretend like he got into McKinsey make his argument more viable
Lmao is “getting into” McKinsey a thing? If so jfc, Ivy bros are something else
That was scathing.
I cannot stand the fact I'm now in an industry that is completely dominated by sociopaths -- and more than that, they're more broadly the people that western society determines as the ones that "thrive".
When I started I was ok with this, I was in consulting by "coincidence" I was hired as a programmer it just had "consulting" tacked on it...but you start to realise you're in this cesspool with white collar scum. Smug, type A shitheads with zero morality. Just awful.
Does that make you a ‘blue collar’ programmer?
Humans don't have morality. Look at Apple with modern slavery, Google protecting China etc. It's not the industry, it's fucking humans
I have morality, am I not human?
You probably got a phone and clothes made by child labour though
The world is not black and white. So, the United States was built on slavery, we're all immoral, all of us, no exceptions, even that newborn baby over there. Same thing goes for Asian empires, African, Europe, hell, the whole world since the first monkeys started killing each other. No one is safe, we're all sinners, immoral, hopeless, tainted and evil, right? We should just give up and be immoral ourselves because the world is black, there is no white, there is no spectrum in your worldview. There is no constant struggle between people who seek morality and those who don't have any. Human history is linear in your worldview and it goes down, there is no ups and downs, no upward trends, no progress, no nuance. You may not realize it yet, but if I were immoral, I would love people who think like you.
You just gave two examples of big tech companies. Of course successful companies and CEOs are immoral, that’s how they got ahead in business. That doesn’t mean normal people don’t have morals
Comment deleted by user
Yeah she’s not a real artist like le queen or pink floyd
I loved this, def feels like modern consulting and even modern management adds barely any value. I would actually say it ties up resources and is actually a net negative
The only consultants worth anything are technical experts in whatever area they work in due to actual experience in the field.
Consulting as its own professional field feels strange by comparison
As someone who works in the advertising business where we have so many clients who insist on category exclusivity, I fail to understand how they let McKinsey work for competitors. Ad people are hardly exposed to trade secrets. McKinsey are usually working on sensitive corporate strategy considerations. Which they then recycle and sell to other clients. It’s just ridiculous.
In my experience when a client tries to get exclusivity, the firm won’t agree to do the work unless that stipulation is taken out of the contract.
Consultants are supposed to be subject matter experts— it’s hard for an individual to be a subject matter expert in an industry by working for only one company within that industry. Also, clients want their consultants to be able to say authoritatively “all your competitors are doing X and here’s how they did it.”
This is why Healthcare advertising agencies exist. Because the topic is complex.
But other clients usually want people with experience to be on their business too, but they won’t let an agency work with other similar businesses. So that usually means you have to lie about your category expertise to get business and then fake it. The fact that you can fake it so easily shows how pointless the competitive restrictions are. The ad business is not about sensitive topics and honestly I have no idea what people on other businesses are working on this month.
You can easily gain expertise by working at one company. By the old fashioned route of experience and seniority.
this is brilliant
Lot of butt hurt people in this thread…
The consultants my company hired brought on expensive executives and middle management that didn’t do 💩 and racked up bills using our company credit and drove the company into the ground after many years. Snakes and vipers
🤣🤣🤣
When your company starts hiring McKinsey, Bain, BCG people as executives or middle managers, it’s time to bail because the whole thing is going to careen into the ground
I hardly believe top tier management consultants (McKinsey, BCG, Bain) used your company's credit card. I easily believe they did not do any real shit.
Not credit cards, company lines of credit to pay themselves because by that point, our company was already well-underwater.
The barcode was actually invented by someone with the last name “Fried” from IBM
Consulting engagements should be subject to regulation, and statutory public disclosure, by clients and consultants. It's literally material information if a CXO is getting their advice from (i.e. blowing their budget on) consultants. This would directly address concerns around conflicts of interest, and there's honestly no meaningful argument in favour of the ridiculous industry norms of omerta.
Will it ever happen? Probably not. But EU has surprised us a few times over the past decade, so one can hope.
“Whatever the fuck procurement as a function is”
When you have garbage decision makers with super low accountability in organisations and people who have no backbone to own up when the shit hits the fan, you have more $ to go around for Mckinsey. That's my take.
Now more people know how consultants are overpaid Machiavellian missionaries to the techno feudalist ruling class.
With the comments I have been seeing in here Poe’s law is in full effect.
Machiavelli was actually strongly opposed to *mercenaries because they weren't loyal to the prince who hired them (among many other reasons, see Chapter 12 of The Prince). Machiavelli would be strongly opposed to today's consultants because they give you advice that they turn around and give your competitors. Machiavelli I suspect would be more in favor of corporate espionage and marketing campaigns, as well as robust M&A and other forms of corporate alliances.
I feel like with the advancement of computer systems, internet and AI the original business model that was constructed in an industrial age starts to die out. Obviously business will always need help and an outside opinion, but the golden age of pure management consulting is most likely behind us.
Definitely far from, part of management consulting also includes digital transformations and how to help/why should organizations adopt more modern tech.
I don’t work at McKinsey, but a huge part of my day-to-day consulting job is explaining to C-suites and technical why it’s important to invest into secure IT environments, have proper resources to support your org internally, and much more.
I agree, pure management consulting will turn into IT consulting. Slowly but surely this seems to be playing out at all the big consulting firms. The business processes and strategy are encoded into the software that runs the company. That is modernity.
You can't make the argument that consultants do nothing and then say that they were so effective in increasing sales of opioids. These arguments don't fit
You can easily argue that in most cases consultants contribute nothing but confirmation bias, but in the potentially outlier cases, which include the cases of advertising, marketing, and strategizing of tobacco and opioids, their client saw large increases in sales.
I would argue that’s in most engagements ..
Could be, but it is difficult to investigate the validity of the argument without any underlying info but the condensed conclusion.
He never made the argument that they do nothing. He made the argument that they are overpaid, and that they are not a force for good in the grand scheme of things. Did you watch the video?
It's John Oliver. What do you expect?
Right, the only people who are allowed to make massive overstatements on limited info are consultants
You could argue that these companies would have sold those opioids anyway. The problem regarding opioids in this case is engaging in immoral action, not inefficient Sales strategies.
Pray tell the difference between “inefficient sale strategies” and “immoral action” in this case.
... is that a serious question? I don't even know where to begin lol
As someone in the Consulting profession: Consultants sell you on fear of missing out -> tell you what to do -> you do it -> they sell you on the next thing to worry about -> repeat.
Its a great business model, but if you take a look around, a lot of the things that are the "in-thing" today are subtly (or not so subtly) driven by consulting companies. E.g., Sustainability, Net-Zero, Inclusive growth, DEI. While all of these are noble concepts, they're merely platitudes that these guys spit out to sell you on the need to change and thereby solicit their services.
Ex-McKinsey here. Great points by John Oliver! All the big topics that led to many controversy - also internally. We received many briefing mails on all the topics in case we were approached by journalists - so right on.
But then again it is not so simple. John really cherry picked the biggest controversies out of like 1m projects - for either funny or scandalous ones. Highly entertaining but I feel like reality is a bit more nuanced. After watching the JO episode YouTube suggested this video - https://youtu.be/qgXY1RoZvvc - feel like it’s quite accurate. Left the firm 5+ years ago.
Well yea the ethics question is definetly a big one, but i have to say that otherwise he really didnt have many strong arguments and just kind of parroted what a lot of people say that have not worked in consulting. The industry is massive and the quality and kind of work is widely different based on country and firm. People keep saying that this is some sort of distorted consequence of capitalism, but if we assume that the goal of companies is to grow and make profit, then why do they keep hiring consultancies if they apparently dont produce any value? You could say that this is the resukt of ceos and middle managers that have no connection to their own company structure, but in most consultant projects you work basically only with the actual workers and department heads and only meet the higher ups at the kick off and end presentation. You get hired and rated by the workers, well and if you keep getting re-hired, then i guess you must have produced value...
Not sure if we watched the same video… John Oliver’s point wasn’t that the consulting industry is always useless. It was that consultants claim to be making the world better, while simultaneously helping out immoral industries and convincing companies to layoff employees.
And thats like saying that architects are evil, because sometimes they build prisons. The industry is vast and in basically every sector. Also it was a major point of him to spin it basically like: "They sell a scam product for high price".
Architects don’t go around recommending that more prisons be built.
Some do, and some consultants work in unethical ways. Still bad to make a broad statement about an industry that works in literally every sector.
I have no clue why you’re getting downvoted.
Companies don't hire anyone. People do (managers, CEOs, VPs, etc). And what is beneficial to them is not always beneficial to the company
Consultants - Truly horrible human beings who know price of everything and value of nothing!
“Often, the outward and visible material signs and symbols of happiness and success only show themselves when the process of decline has already set in. The outer manifestations take time - like the light of that star up there, which may in reality be already quenched, when it looks to us to be shining its brightest.” -Thomas Mann, Buddenbrooks
I feel like I associate John Oliver with the onset of decay on any one knowledge area- by the time it becomes popular with his message and his audience, the thing itself, or signified, becomes so diluted, so homogenized like some sort of discretionary intellectual homeopathy by John Oliver to intentionally create an audio gap between sound and quality that his audience instinctively picks up on and relays, so that the message becomes a little more digestible.
I'm not gonna pretend like I watched all 26 minutes of the clip or laughed at his jokes- I watch partially, and it was enough. He is good at streamlining ideas and entire practice areas and dynamics to a "smart but ignorant" audience, but at the same time you can tell he and the audience are neurotic to like each other and be accepted, and to do this they sort of determine an intellectual outcome or positivistic take, then finagle information to get to where the audience wants things to be. "Last Week Tonight" promises answers that are the antithesis of "it depends," and every joke he makes assures you, fellow audience member, that he will get there, keep watching assuredly, without fear of doubt or inconclusiveness. John Oliver, and people who accept the sort of constellation of claims he makes, the groundwork he asserts in using McKinsey or some other noun as a metonymy, play a game of two insecure people who care too much what the other thinks, and in agreeing prematurely to like the other, never let the water and the debris settle enough to get the full picture itself on consulting, or on any other matter.
Call it ad hominem if you will, I don't care. John Oliver and the way he frames topics, is intended for people who are a *little* intellectually curious, and in that dosage creates more harm than being neurotically "intellectually curious" by way of the consultant, while overloading those that don't care. At least consultants and the non-partisan know who they are. John Oliver and his audience watch 15 minutes of Jeopardy, then, satisfied, turn off the TV. They homogenize what they say, and in doing so, homeopathologize it into pseudo-science blabble when it's not. It might not be harmful, but it's certainly distasteful, and I do not identify with the audience.
Nice thesaurus there, but you should really check out this neat thing called a dictionary. You can write a verbose, vague rant about midwits, but talking about people talking is usually far less substantial than talking about the topic. I really hope your powerpoints aren't similar to your Reddit comments.
That’s fair
Found one. Get a grip, chimp. Lol @ know who they are, like self reflection and introspection are limited to, well, you guys. Freud is looking for you.
I can’t take this seriously without the word “defenestration.”
“We’re capable of anything and culpable for nothing”. That was satisfying to watch and I mean this with all my sincerity- fuck you McK (and MBB). Can’t wait to see it all crumble to the ground brick by brick
Jesus. Such paper thin arguments. He jumps to such crazy conclusions based on a handful of cases. Makes me think what else he’s been wrong about. Haven’t been more convinced that he goes agenda first research later.
There are some arguments more for the sake of laughs but also legitimately terrible situations (namely the Rikers and Purdue/FDA)
A single example of what you're talking about would probably help you argument. thx.
Sent from my iPhone.
If you know anything about financial markets, you’ll laugh non-stop AT HIM for his retirement planning video
He talks about the paper invoice thing as an example of obvious advice and then goes on to say that that’s what McKinsey does. That’s such a gross overgeneralisation I don’t know even know if they have a word for it
Come on, you are a consultant. Invent a new buzzword, duh.
Yeh too tunnel visoned. Obviously didn’t MECE.
Everytime I have watched his show in a topic I am familiar with, it's so biased and distorted, I can no longer watch it in areas I am unfamiliar with.
Every strong manager understands hiring a team of people modeled on yourself is a disaster and poor performing team. It's fairly clear this show is ideologically captured and every employee must be an adherent of the same ideology creating enormous blind spots.
Oh no, time for the show to hire MBB to fix it.
The irony is strong with this one.
Yea, really feels like someone talking, that has no actual knowledge how a consulting job actually works. We live in a capitalist world, so if apparently consultants only produce high level basic results, then why do companies keep hiring them... John Olivers fact checking sadly rarely goes deeper than buzz feed level anslysis. Hes still fun
Trying to pitch heroin for kids is paper thin? Folks without nice suits and Harvard degrees would go to prison for a long time for something like that
I will never understand people who graduate college and go straight into consulting. I would only want to consult with people with real world experiaince.
The fact that McKinsey grew out of acedemia adds to the phrase "those who can't do, teach........then bullshit their way back into doing"
Any link available for Canadian folks?
Scathing-