Or that they were hired by former mcKinsey consultants turned executives.
That’s the most egregious part imho, how when consultants get fired, the firm gives all the help it can so they can land a good job in a decision-making role at a potential client.
Have you heard of any company working as hard as mcKinsey, bcg, etc to help people they just fired?
This is not true factually and not true simply because you need the best person to do the job. Why would I hire an inferior candidate when I can hire a much better one that will make the company grow and make me wealthy as a consequence?
> Why would I hire an inferior candidate when I can hire a much better one that will make the company grow and make me wealthy as a consequence?
There are plenty of reasons why an individual's goals aren't aligned with the org they're in. The larger the org, the more reasons there are.
For instance, you could be looking for loyal allies, rather than competent competitors. Or you could be looking for someone that will just repeat what you say as an exterior pov, rather than do "the best work" and potentially contradict you in front of your superiors. Or you could be looking for someone to take the fall for a botched project of yours. Or you could be looking to hire a relative or a friend of your boss in order to curry their favour. There are plenty more.
As for the relation between making the company healthy and profitable and having a successful carreer ; except for founders and a few early employees, it's usually more profitable to look for individual advancement within the company (promotions, raises, etc) rather than to expect the company's growth to benefit you.
Of course, employees are supposed to have some deontology, but you can't expect that all employees in a company fit that ideal.
>As for the relation between making the company healthy and profitable and having a successful carreer ; except for founders and a few early employees, it's usually more profitable to look for individual advancement within the company (promotions, raises, etc) rather than to expect the company's growth to benefit you.
That's not the case for people at the top with extremely high salaries tied to stock. Which explains why their salaries are high.
In general you are not refuting my main point and you are bringing edge cases which I agree can exist. But in general the incentives are aligned to hire a CEO best fit for the job and not some one you know.
Dissemination of big three alumni into companies, and their use of the services of their former colleagues is a thing I have witnessed, both from the client side, and from the experience from friends at these firms when they left.
It's simply the way these firms work: associates cultivate long-term business/support relations with executives, and they progress in the firm as these relations become more fruitful. It's honestly unsurprising that departing employees are seen as potential clients, and therefore that the firm helps them land as well as they can.
You don't need board approval for every recruitment of an executive or every decision to hire a big-three contractor, at least not in large enough companies.
That’s the most egregious part imho, how when consultants get fired, the firm gives all the help it can so they can land a good job in a decision-making role at a potential client.
Have you heard of any company working as hard as mcKinsey, bcg, etc to help people they just fired?