Weil action points: fix silo mentality, dump personality cults and invest

  • Print
  • Comments (1)

Readers' comments (1)

  • Choosing McKinsey as adviser is not necessarily a good sign for a Managing Partner – as he is seen right from the beginning as not strong enough to unite his peers around a valid way forward. As the article claims right in the beginning…
    Even worse, McKinsey tends to produce a lot of paper—but very little consensus among the partners. But only if there is a consensus, than there will be change.
    McKinsey is known for cutting costs - to find an argument why they were hired in the first place. Costs in law firms are mostly about people. But people are a resource to build upon, not to reduce.
    Changing the profit sharing agreement is typically the last resort – not to begin with. To believe that you can “incentive” partners who earn, on average, around 2.3 USD, is a contradiction in itself. The danger that the most successful ones leave first are very big in this kind of approach.
    The history of McKinsey consulting assignments in this industry is not a guarantee for success. If one looks at the widely published jobs they have done at White & Case (which has seen a lot of partner leave the firm after a governance review) and others which I know of, we can be sure of one thing: they are completely insensitive about the culture of the firm, and thus might produce a paper, but not a new strategy.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (1)