Couple of things to add:

McKinsey has a weird structure where there are too many cooks in the kitchen.

Everybody there is reviewed on client impact, meaning it ends up being an everybody-for-themselves situation.

So as a developer you have little guidance (in fact, you're still being reviewed on client impact, even if you have 0 client exposure).

Then a (Senior) Partner comes in with this idea (that will get them a good review), and you jump on that. After all, it's all you can do to get a good review.

You work on it, and then the (Senior) Partner moves on. But it's not done. It's enough for the review, but continuing to work on it doesn't bring you anything, in fact, it will actually pull you down, as finishing the project doesn't give immediate client results.

So what does this mean? Most products of McKinsey are a grab-bag of raw ideas of leadership, implemented as a one-off, without a cohesive vision or even a long-term vision at all. It's all about the review cycle.

McKinsey is trying to do software like they do their other engagements. It doesn't work. You can't just do something for 6 months and then let it go. Software rots.

The fact that they laid off a good amount of (very good) software engineers in 2024 is a reflection on how they see software development.

And McKinsey's people, who go to other companies, take those ideas with them. Result: The UI of your project changes all the time, because everybody is looking at the short-term impact they have that gets them a good review, not what is best for the project in the long term.

▲

itsnotme12 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Those comments are spot on.

McKinsey was on a spree to become the best tech consulting company and brought a lot of great tech talent but the 2023 crisis made leadership turn 180 and simply ditch/ignore all the tech experts they brought to the firm.

All the expertise has left the firm and now they are more and more becoming another BS tech consulting firm, with strategy folks that don't even know that ML is AI advising clients on Enterprise AI transformation.

The tech initiative was a failure and Lilli's problem is just a symptom of it.

I wonder what was the experience at Bain and BCG

	▲	two_tasty an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I previously worked at BCGX, their tech arm. It's not quite as bad as you point out here, but tech workers are very much second-class-citizens. There's a "jock" vs. "nerd" dynamic between BCG business consultants and BCGX tech folks, even at senior levels. I think it's changing, but it will take a long time and many technical folks being admitted to the partnership.

▲

yard2010 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm far from being an expert, but it sounds like this company needs some consultancy.

	▲	munk-a 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Can McKinsey fund McKinsey by consulting for McKinsey? Could we oroborus corporate consulting so that those consultants could be trapped in a loop and those of us doing useful work wouldn't need to interact with them anymore?

▲

gavinray 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why would anyone work there, then, unless that's the only place they could get hired as a dev?

And if the latter is the case, then that sort of stamps the case closed from the get-go...

▲

dmbche 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Great money?

▲

ng12 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

According to levels the pay band caps out around $250k and a principal title. It's good but probably not enough for most to put up with the culture long term.

▲

john_strinlai 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>[...] the pay band caps out around $250k [...] probably not enough for most [...]

an absolutely wild statement to 99.9+% of the world

▲

anonMcKinsey 21 minutes ago | parent [-]

99.9% of the world doesn't live in the US with a 4.0 GPA from a top ten university.

They're not very bright, most of them. But they're very hard workers and high achievers. They stay for the resume candy or the health care.

	▲	john_strinlai 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>[...] US with a 4.0 GPA from a top ten university. They're not very bright, most of them. the top students from the top ten universities in the US produce... mostly not very bright people? this is getting even stranger to the rest of us plebians. sometimes i am left in awe of how different my world is from some of you here

▲

dahcryn 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

When you get to partner level, you also get profit sharing on top of you salary.

Partners get 300-400k and senior partners get closer to 600-800

▲

anonMcKinsey 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not really when you normalize by hours you are expected to work. You're also surrounded by spineless sycophantic keeners without an original thought in their heads who would throw you off the building for a good review.

It reminds me of Lewis' "National Institute for Co-ordinated Experiments"

The health care is amazing, though. $30/mo for a family $900 deductible? Something like that. If you have a sick family member it's a no brainer.

▲

cmiles8 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not really relative to broader options in tech. The big money goes to the consulting leaders, but most of these folks look like glorified grifters more and more as time goes on.

Ultimately AI may be a big threat to the sort of “advisory” work McKinsey historically focused on.

▲

steve1977 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> McKinsey is trying to do software like they do their other engagements. It doesn't work.

I mean, it doesn't work for their consulting gigs either. There's a reason McKinsey has such a bad reputation.

▲

_doctor_love 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But it does work for them? They make tons of money.

▲

steve1977 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well, fair point. It doesn't work for their clients.

▲

operatingthetan 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

As an ex-consultant: consulting at that level is kind of a grift. They over-promise and under-deliver as SOP. It's ripe for AI disruption, whatever that looks like.

	▲	steve1977 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ideally, executives will get replaced by AI soon. Which should actually be easier than engineers. That will kind of solve the consulting problem automatically.

▲

Spooky23 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Their model works great.

It’s really about bypassing the existing power structure of the company. Competence of the work itself is a secondary objective. Most in-house initiatives can be slow rolled by management.

The fresh faced consultant with 2-3 steps to access the CEO neutralizes that. It seems grifty but is really exploiting bugs in corporate governance.

The current fad of firing the managers is a riff on this. Every jackass C-level is coming up with the novel idea of flattening.

▲

steve1977 4 hours ago | parent [-]

This somehow implies that initiatives or strategies from consultants are somewhat successful. This is not the case in my experience.

	▲	entrox 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		No, you misunderstood. It is not about their output, it almost never is. Most of the times, the business decision has already been made long before McK is hired. It’s all about legitimizing that decision and making it happen. You can also wield them as a weapon against internal competitors or opponents. Look up how they were used to kill off Cariad for example.
	▲	Spooky23 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		They reflect the will of the principal who hired them. Success is in the eye of the beholder.