Problems faced by the McKinsey’s partners

Since the reorganization of McKinsey with Wellington & Company, the firm’s partners met several challenges from internal to communication with others. In the particular scenario, the nature of the business consists of partners at the same level if the partner is in the form of con-owner or individual consultant with having an own business entity. They all treated at the same degree and thus increased the conflicts to provide increased compensation and benefits from the firm’s activity. Another problem wasthelack of communication with other partners because the company’s policy offered each one freedom to take decisions rather than focus on other’s decisions. This sort of mixed decision and acted criteria had made severe issues to retain the experienced partners in the long-term because every new partner performed well to take aposition and to decrease the other’s power. Therefore, it is said that if the new policies and procedures regarding limit the increase of partners and their freedom would not implement then the whole scenario would take place at the same level and decrease the reputation and performance of the company overtime.

McKinsey’s governance and incentive arrangements

Under the case, it shows that the type of governing body set by McKinsey was not right to providean equal measure to the related management and other members in the business. It means that the compensation and other benefits were based on the charge per diem instead of monthly benefits. This sort of criteria had made unbalanced performance measure of the firms operated under the particular business because it allowed the influential consultants to provide more services and paid more than the less powerful ones. Also, the governing body decided to hire the office managers under its terms. It allowed increasing the turnover rate and not to focus each manager on taking responsibility at his/her level.

Proposals to adopt, reject and impact on the partner’s interest

With the proposals of Marvin Bower, it has been analyzed that the business was still in a difficult process to survive within a particular market even in the form of best management consultancy firm of the year. It is because the internal policies and structure were not right to sustain the operational activities in the upcoming years. Therefore, the proposals included changing to personal systems in which, only a few partners and members would have authority over the business rather than focusing on each member of the firm. This scenario would be easy to implement before the planning committee would change the nature of the enterprise. To elaborate its benefit, many partners would remain in the same position over the years and perform better services under the security of the partnership criteria. Many of them would divert from the business activity due to not involve in the managerial decisions of the firm like in the case of new policies. Therefore, the changes in the personal policies should implement because almost more than half of the partners would show interest due to increase the chances of more compensation and benefits rather than involve in the top management’s decision process………………….

This is just a sample partical work. Please place the order on the website to get your own originally done case solution.

Share This