Earlier quoted context omitted.
The old “nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft” argument.
Didn't that use to be IBM?
Yes, back before Microsoft became a household word.
Confessions of a McKinsey Whistleblower
21–27 of 27 posts
Re: Confessions of a McKinsey Whistleblower
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
And to add some context, given a couple of lifes ago I was rubbing shoulders with those people: Please don't go over to either extreme of the spectrum (of opinion). Those companies make the obscene amounts of money because they do generally _work_. They are like dietary supplements: as long as they don't kill anyone they don't really need to do anything useful to sell well. So in most cases the outcome is somewhere b…
> and at the very least they generally do no harm. Except taking money from whoever hired them. Fine if CEOs of private companies want to lose money, but at least public entities should be forbidden from spending public money into those jokes. > doing something without taking responsibility Also CEOs tend to get a very high salary because of their "responsibilities", so I don't like the idea that they get the high sa…
My personal opinion is that I would very much prefer all those smart and hard-working people be doing _more useful stuff_. So I think we're at the same sentiment here.
As for CEOs of public companies I do not know but my _impression_ still is that those consultancies are usually hired at lower levels - where the "responsibility buyout" is precisely _against_ such a CEO. Sort'a like the old "Nobody was ever fired for buying IBM".
And indeed I think the root is at the top (no pun intended): in most large(er) organization the incentives at the top are such that "having a sustained business" is _the worst possible choice_ - when you have a golden parachute deal it's better for you to literally bankrupt the company than to play it safe and say, ensure all the employees are not only well-treated but also well-compensated.
Re: Confessions of a McKinsey Whistleblower
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and at the very least they generally do no harm. Except taking money from whoever hired them. Fine if CEOs of private companies want to lose money, but at least public entities should be forbidden from spending public money into those jokes. > doing something without taking responsibility Also CEOs tend to get a very high salary because of their "responsibilities", so I don't like the idea that they get the high sa…
My personal opinion is that I would very much prefer all those smart and hard-working people be doing _more useful stuff_. So I think we're at the same sentiment here. As for CEOs of public companies I do not know but my _impression_ still is that those consultancies are usually hired at lower levels - where the "responsibility buyout" is precisely _against_ such a CEO. Sort'a like the old "Nobody was ever fired for…
> when you have a golden parachute deal it's better for you to literally bankrupt the company than to play it safe
Never thought about it this way, but yeah, it makes sense to me!
Re: Confessions of a McKinsey Whistleblower
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is why democratising power is so important, regardless of system. What makes you think that some form of democracy will help with whatever you diagnose here?
It's the only way to systematically distribute power.
No? What makes you think so?
For a counter example: if everyone decides for themselves what they want to do with themselves, that's not democratic at all. Doesn't involve any voting etc. But it's systematically distributed power.
And that kind of arrangement is common for most aspects of life in most places.
Eg you can decide for yourself what you want for breakfast or whether you want any breakfast at all. Throughout most of history you could also decide for yourself what kind of substances you want to put into your body.
Though in the last hundred-and-something years there has been a lot of democratic (or autocratic..) control over that in many places. Cannabis and alcohol make for interesting example of how (democratic or not) government control waxes and vanes.
In most countries, where you go for a holiday is up to you. But eg Americans' democratically decided that they can't go to Cuba without a special license. (By the way, I would call this the opposite of distributing power. They centralised the decision.) In the bad old days, people living in the German Democratic Republic famously were really restricted in their holiday-abroad choices. (But whether one wants to call their regime 'democratic' is rather debatable.)
But the right solution to East Germany's travel restriction wasn't to put every citizens travel plans under democratic control (eg up to a vote by all the citizens). The Right Thing to do was to just lift travel restrictions, and that's what they did when they joined the Federal Republic of Germany.
Re: Confessions of a McKinsey Whistleblower
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the only way to systematically distribute power.
No? What makes you think so? For a counter example: if everyone decides for themselves what they want to do with themselves, that's not democratic at all. Doesn't involve any voting etc. But it's systematically distributed power. And that kind of arrangement is common for most aspects of life in most places. Eg you can decide for yourself what you want for breakfast or whether you want any breakfast at all. Throughou…
It's cute to see you taking your first steps with big concepts like freedom and democracy, but serious, read a book or ten to discover what we have learned past dictionary definitions.
Re: Confessions of a McKinsey Whistleblower
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
No? What makes you think so? For a counter example: if everyone decides for themselves what they want to do with themselves, that's not democratic at all. Doesn't involve any voting etc. But it's systematically distributed power. And that kind of arrangement is common for most aspects of life in most places. Eg you can decide for yourself what you want for breakfast or whether you want any breakfast at all. Throughou…
It's cute to see you taking your first steps with big concepts like freedom and democracy, but serious, read a book or ten to discover what we have learned past dictionary definitions.
[deleted]
Re: Confessions of a McKinsey Whistleblower
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
No? What makes you think so? For a counter example: if everyone decides for themselves what they want to do with themselves, that's not democratic at all. Doesn't involve any voting etc. But it's systematically distributed power. And that kind of arrangement is common for most aspects of life in most places. Eg you can decide for yourself what you want for breakfast or whether you want any breakfast at all. Throughou…
It's cute to see you taking your first steps with big concepts like freedom and democracy, but serious, read a book or ten to discover what we have learned past dictionary definitions.
Thanks for ignoring my argument.
What do _you_ mean by 'systematically distributing power' then? Anything that's not begging the question?