More like "tell me what you already decided to do, and pay me out the ass to create a justification for it so you can pin it on us if it’s a giant fuckup after the fact’.
You have to understand why they are employed though - somebody stands to gain from doing some thing, so the way they get to justify doing that thing is to hire these people, so they come in, deliver a report that says the thing is the best thing to do with graphs that go up, and it happens, McKinsey gets paid, the beneficiary gets what they want and life goes on.
That plus there’s a massive incentive for overpaid executives to farm out any actual decision-making to consultants. They could lose their cushy jobs if they did something unpopular that made the news and hurt stock prices. But if the decision was promoted by an expensive consulting firm, that launders the blame. It hurts the business in a fundamental way, obviously, but publicly traded companies have not been very focused on fundamentals up until lately. Tighter monetary policy should have changed this, but the paradigm has been slow to shift for many.
Only if you also sold the idea to the investor class
It’s why companies all seem to lay people off and go to a subscription model in lock step - the stock price only goes up because they’re playing both sides
“What’s your advice?”
“My advice is to not take my advice. That’ll be 63 million dollars, please.”
More like "tell me what you already decided to do, and pay me out the ass to create a justification for it so you can pin it on us if it’s a giant fuckup after the fact’.
“Certainly Sir! Money well spent!”
You have to understand why they are employed though - somebody stands to gain from doing some thing, so the way they get to justify doing that thing is to hire these people, so they come in, deliver a report that says the thing is the best thing to do with graphs that go up, and it happens, McKinsey gets paid, the beneficiary gets what they want and life goes on.
That plus there’s a massive incentive for overpaid executives to farm out any actual decision-making to consultants. They could lose their cushy jobs if they did something unpopular that made the news and hurt stock prices. But if the decision was promoted by an expensive consulting firm, that launders the blame. It hurts the business in a fundamental way, obviously, but publicly traded companies have not been very focused on fundamentals up until lately. Tighter monetary policy should have changed this, but the paradigm has been slow to shift for many.
That would unironically be good advice which means he couldnt give it.
But if he did, would they take it?
Only if you also sold the idea to the investor class
It’s why companies all seem to lay people off and go to a subscription model in lock step - the stock price only goes up because they’re playing both sides