Thread List
First Page Previous Page Page 217 / 305 Next Page Last Page
Subject#Latest
4 09.12.06
4 08.12.06
8 08.12.06
5 08.12.06
3 07.12.06
1 07.12.06
2 07.12.06
1 07.12.06
3 07.12.06
3 06.12.06
3 06.12.06
12 06.12.06
2 06.12.06
11 06.12.06
17 06.12.06
13 06.12.06
3 06.12.06
5 06.12.06
7 05.12.06
21 05.12.06
6 05.12.06
6 05.12.06
1 05.12.06
1 05.12.06
3 05.12.06
1 05.12.06
4 05.12.06
5 04.12.06
1 04.12.06
4 04.12.06
3 04.12.06
1 04.12.06
30 04.12.06
36 04.12.06
3 04.12.06
6 03.12.06
3 03.12.06
3 02.12.06
15 02.12.06
6 02.12.06
1 02.12.06
4 01.12.06
20 01.12.06
3 01.12.06
3 30.11.06
5 30.11.06
27 30.11.06
7 30.11.06
9 30.11.06
4 30.11.06
First Page Previous Page Page 217 / 305 Next Page Last Page

THE REAL TRUTH

 
#1 THE REAL TRUTH
28/11/2006 22:53

pirlo

I usually dont do this. But I found the below on another that spoke of Deloitte. I think the author makes a very good point and I would like to share it with you. Enjoy

"

I have worked at McKinsey and BCG. I was a VP at a F500 where I hired many major consulting, technology and advertising firms including DC. Let me tell you the truth: it is all the same. McKinsey does some great work -- and they do a lot of crap work as well. DC does fantastic work as well. And some crap too.

You are all missing the most important point. It's not what firm you work at. It's what platform you build. The idea is to become known as an expert within your client base, within the industry and within the firm. Then you use this reputation to sell. Sell, sell, sell. When you sell well, you make a lot of money. And you can go to any firm you want. DC partners go to McK, McK talent goes to DC. Over the generations, all the knowledge capital is known by all the top players at all the firms. There is nothing new under the sun.

Strategy is just a bad word. The issue is not IT v S&O or strategy versus implementation. The issue is having impact with your expertise. The sooner you realize your own vision by having huge impact through client service, then the name of the firm you happen to be working for is irrelevant.

Except for one important detail -- culture. The firm's cultures are all very different. Mck IS elitist. BCG is irreverent. DC is collaborative. Agency is cut throat. Different people do well in different cultures. But don't believe for a second that Mck or any other firm is that much better than the other. They all have ugly warts.

I've done a lot of pure strategy work in my time. And to me it's just plain boring. All you do is collect data, do analysis, write a deck, present and repeat. You're a glorified bank analyst. I'd take operational work over strategy work any day of the week. Because it is enduring. It is about influencing people. It is about relationships. It is about impact. And at the end of the day, it is where the best of client service can really shine. Strategy is really, really easy compared to driving real positive change within a complex organization.

And by the way, the average DC partner makes a lot of money. Sure, you can make more at GS or McK or in dozens of other places and firms. But DC partners make plenty. More than enough to end up with millions by the end of a good career. If that's not enough for you, then I suggest you read a book called Flow to get your internal dialogue adjusted. "

Reply  Quote   
 
#2 RE: THE REAL TRUTH
29/11/2006 08:25

Random acts of Language to pirlo (#1)

I think the above is very valid, we're all different people and perform at our best in different ways. Some are more appropriate to some cultures with others being right elsewhere.

That said I've worked with more than a few who've lacked the self awareness to recognise that they're in the wrong place. They do neither themselves nor their firm any favours.

That said, at the lower end of the food chain there is more influence in the CV from previous employers. Junior people haven't had the opportunity to establish a personal brand so are more reliant on the perceived prestige of a firm, whether that be personally psychological or not. The arguments presented are entirely valid from Manager upwards but less so at the entry level, although there is little point in an early ulcer and the beginnings of a heart problem from picking the wrong ''fit''.

Reply  Quote   
 
#3 RE: THE REAL TRUTH
29/11/2006 09:10

Mr T to Random acts of Language (#2)

I'm happy I found this post first thing in the morning. It gave a nice massage to my brain cells.

A delight to read. I'd like to hear Vi's, Beng's and Boxershort's opinion (among the interesting bunch who hangs out here) to this article.

Reply  Quote   
 
#4 RE: THE REAL TRUTH
29/11/2006 10:15

anon to Mr T (#3)

and Tony & Co for that matter!

Reply  Quote   
 
#5 RE: THE REAL TRUTH
29/11/2006 15:58

Jon to anon (#4)

Sorry, but what is DC?

1.Direct current (not possible right ;)

2.Deloitte consulting

3. ?

Reply  Quote   
 
#6 RE: THE REAL TRUTH
29/11/2006 16:41

Mr T to Jon (#5)

Deloitte Consulting

Reply  Quote   
 
#7 RE: THE REAL TRUTH
29/11/2006 18:09

Master Z to pirlo (#1)

Nice piece Pirlo. Very galvanizing. What's you advice for someone who has 5 years IT consulting and recently an MBA?

do mail me personally: sampr@hotmail.com

Reply  Quote   
 
#8 RE: THE REAL TRUTH
29/11/2006 23:27

Boxershorts to Mr T (#3)

Boxershorts's opinion:

I loved it. Insightful and spot on.

And then 'Random acts' plugged the only hole I could see - your personal cred / brand is very much dependent on where you work or worked when you're still junior. It might also, in some cases, affect your sense of self-worth to be associated with a bigger name. As they say, it's not what you know, it's who you know. At the beginning of your career you've not yet built a reputation around what you know - so who you know is all you've got!

Pirlo, great spot. Thanks for sharing.

Reply  Quote   
 
#9 RE: THE REAL TRUTH
30/11/2006 09:21

bri500 to Boxershorts (#8)

So true, though quite obvious when you think about it. If it was all about the top firms then they'd have an oligopoly, however, many other less "prestigous" firms do very well too.

There are millionaire partners in every half decent consultancy, the really rich ones are the ones who get the same clients to come back again and again and then get personal referrals. Success in consultancy is about personal brand as stated above, not necessarily company brand.

As for company brand, yes, it is important at lower levels but ultimately it’s about what you learn that gets you on in life, people from so called lesser consultancies (as it also true with universities) often get much more exposure than the rigid systems of the more established ones and as such go on to very good things. Yeah, I wouldn’t mind McKinsey on my CV, but I wouldn’t kill myself to get it (like the guys saying they’ll wait years to get in there) as I’m content I’ve got a varied and interesting career just now which has and will open many doors for me.

Reply  Quote   
 
#10 RE: THE REAL TRUTH
05/12/2006 11:14

Mr T to bri500 (#9)

I really didnt want this thread to die just yet.

So I was wondering if someone could clearly pinpoint what exactly does it mean (with an example if possible) an irreverent culture (BCG).

Also the only cultures mentioned in the article are Deloitte, McK and BCG.

What would your opinion be regarding the culture in other consultancy firms such as Acc, KPMG, EY or PwC?

Reply  Quote   
 
#11 RE: THE REAL TRUTH
06/12/2006 17:28

Tomatso to Mr T (#10)

My experience of Accenture's culture is that it is very macho, long hours, JFDI.

Reply  Quote   

Top of Page

ThreadID: 21091

Advertise
Your Jobs!