Talk:McKinsey & Company

message: This section is GAN-ready. CorporateM (Talk) 15:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Early history

message: This section is also GAN-ready. CorporateM (Talk) 19:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Establishment

message: This section needs a bit of expansion I think if it is to cover all the major aspects:
* Gupta opened new international offices aggressively in cities including Moscow, Beijing and Bangkok.
:*Done, but expanding on "aggressively" would be nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Re: Gupta's expansions? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm..... The prior paragraph in the source credits Gupta directly for some of the re-structuring, but the following paragraph on growing pains does not directly attribute the concerns to him. I can scan the page and provide a copy if you prefer. CorporateM (Talk) 17:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

text: *Worked in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

text: *Worked in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

text: *Worked in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

text: *Worked in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

text: *Worked in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done... I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done... I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent history

message: Based on a discussion with user:FreeRangeFrog regarding hammering out the rest of the GAN-preparation edits, I prepared an annotated draft of all my remaining suggested edits at User:CorporateM/McKinsey. FreeRangeFrog has reviewed the edits and found them to be appropriate, but wisely asked that I share the draft here for any interested editors to comment. In particular, user:My2011 I know has an interest in compensation and the galleon scandal, which I have proposed modifications and trims to in the draft. I know he/she said they were busy IRL, but if they do have time to take a look, it would be great to get your input first! Naturally anyone else is also welcome to comment. CorporateM (Talk) 03:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN-ready draft 

message: Do we need to be told three times that they have an up or out policy, four times that they employ recent graduates? 31.52.254.118 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetitious 

message: I just got copyright permissions for a couple images (see below):
* Suggest adding the image of James McKinsey (the org's founder) to Early History and to the page on James McKinsey
* Suggest adding the Marvin Bower image to Organization/Corporate culture and replacing the non-free image on Marvin Bower
* I'm not sure the image "McKinsey Office in Bucharest, Romania" is really pertinent, but I am somewhat indifferent. HQ images are usually considered appropriate and have a place in the infobox, but McKinsey does not have an official headquarters and this appears to be of a random location.
* The Lead says "headquartered in New York City in the United States" though the company actually has no official HQ location. Its "CEO" operates out of London and it was founded in New York City.
CorporateM (Talk) 21:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images and misc 

message: :In the 1980s, AT&T reduced investments in cell towers due to McKinsey's prediction that there would only be 900,000 cell phone subscribers by 2000. According to The Firm this was "laughably off the mark" from the 109 million cellular subscribers by 2000.
I would like to know more about this bad prediction.  Is it possible that the consultants were deliberately favoring landlines over towers?  I think anyone familiar with technology would have seen where this was going, so it's hard to believe this recommendation was made in all seriousness.  In any case, I'm surprised this is a good article as the material is poorly structured and the narrative is almost nonexistent.  I wonder if this would pass if it went to reassessment. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cell towers 

message: The current Lead says "McKinsey & Company is an American multinational...", however McKinsey no longer has an official headquarters, its CEO is actually based in London, and the majority of its revenues are from outside the US. A quick look at their global locations map looks like they may have more locations in Europe than in the US. 
Can we trim this word "American". Not sure where it's coming from. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 16:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Per who we are "We have no headquarters in the traditional sense." While I am sure there is some legal domicile somewhere, that is a technicality. Most multinationals have a main headquarters; this company appears not to have one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone has, once again, added New York City as the company's headquarters and labeled the organization as "American" in the Lead rather than "multinational". The provided sources to justify claiming its headquarters are in New York City are things like Hoovers (not reliable) and a link to McKinsey's website. Both of these websites identify New York City as a location, but not specifically as their headquarters. As previously discussed just above this post, McKinsey's own website says they have no headquarters, so it's a bit ironic to cite them as saying the opposite. Do you mind taking a look once more? I think  also dealt with this same exact issue on this page a while back. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 19:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy to look but I glanced through the latest five edits and didn't see it - can you track down the edit?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   It looks like it was done by an IP here. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 21:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

text: See the differences between edits.  "New York City" was already there as the headquarters—I merely supplied the references to (I thought) back up that assertion.  However, I have no personal attachment to or knowledge of that "fact", so if you know better, then go ahead make the change (to "hq_location = none")—just be sure to include a citation or two to that effect. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I misread the edit - I have to run, will say more when I get home.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the change--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "American" 

message: The article once-again lists New York City as McKinsey's headquarters in the infobox and as a Category: "Companies based in New York City". You may remember from prior discussions that this edit was recurring, even though McKinsey states on its website that it has no headquarters and the sources used were usually not reliable. This time however, they did find a reliable source (Forbes) that does list NYC as their headquarters in contradiction to the company's own claims. I've asked McKinsey to request a correction from Forbes, but often such requests are a lost cause with press that isn't current. Thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 23:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See the differences between edits.  "New York City" was already there as the headquarters—I merely supplied the references to (I thought) back up that assertion.  However, I have no personal attachment to or knowledge of that "fact", so if you know better, then go ahead make the change (to "hq_location = none")—just be sure to include a citation or two to that effect. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I misread the edit - I have to run, will say more when I get home.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the change--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Headquarters revisited

message: What's the actual current number of employees? Forbes lists 11,000 in their company listing. Big Three (management consultancies) notes 17,000, contradicting the main article here with 14,000. An IP-editor just suggested 29,000 based on LinkedIn data (but I have reverted this change without a specific verifiable and reliable source). Maybe the numbers have fluctuated recently (or different numbers are based on different methods of calculation). It would be great, if someone more knowledgeable could clarify these differences and update both articles accordingly. Also, if the numbers often fluctuate, it would probably be helpful to always add a specific month and year to such values - just to reduce the inevitable inaccuracy with variable statistics. GermanJoe (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I got some useful clarification on the variance in employee-counts from McKinsey today. According to McKinsey, they have 12,000 consultants and another 2,000 research and information professionals(source), but more than 20,000 total employees(see McKinsey Fact Sheet found here). The employee-count reported in secondary sources often varies depending on what year they are reporting for, and whether they are actually reporting number of consultants, rather than total employees. For example, 11,000 was probably the number of consultants a year or two ago, whereas 17,000 was probably the total number of employees a year or two ago. CorporateM (Talk) 15:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. I suggest to give it a few days, but if noone objects to the self-sourced number of 20,000, we could probably use it (assuming other consultancy articles also use "total number of employees" and not "number of consultants" as statistical value?). If clarity is needed, we could also explicitly note the differing calculations in a footnote. GermanJoe (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks . I never would have noticed the need for a correction if you hadn't spotted it. Good catch. CorporateM (Talk) 14:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - added a short footnote as background information as well. As always, feel free to tweak my English :). GermanJoe (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of employees? 

message: It appears the the two incidents listed did not directly involve the firm. So their relevance is "once removed"; probably still worth including, but through the sequence of events at the article, you have a big "corruption" section at the article on the company that covers things (not counting vague allegations) that neither the company nor it's employees did.  This makes the article give a distorted impression. The best way to fix it is probably more complex, but as an interim or quickie pseudo-fix, I plan to just move those incident subsections into the history section. North8000 (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate top level "corruption" section?

message: Such detailed statistics to highlight the company's prestige are undue weight for the lead, which should serve only as a brief overview for the topic. Please discuss here, if you disagree. GermanJoe (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that the paragraph is undue weight for the lead. It would be appropriate to include a 1-sentence summary in the lead and leave the more detailed information in the Influence section. Is it typical to describe former employees as "alumni"? –dlthewave ☎ 17:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A short 1-sentence mention could work, if anyone has a good neutrally-phrased suggestion. The problem is really not the fact itself, but its overly detailed promotional presentation in undue weight. However, I strongly disagree with any usage of Vault or similar sources in the lead, these "awards" are the result of trivial popularity polls with no evidence of any deeper professional analysis, and the whole site is little more than a thinly-veiled PR platform for the companies. GermanJoe (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Parts of it are already covered in "Influence" further down. While the tone could use a bit of additional work, this seems like a fair coverage of the company's status in the branche, especially in combination with other related sections like "Culture". Of course nobody is denying that the company has significant influence in its branche and beyond. GermanJoe (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I didn't notice that in my "quick look". North8000 (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight for alumni statistics in lead - removed 

message: At first glance this appears to inched into undue territory regarding controversies. A quick read seems to indicate that the article is being inched towards stretching too far to include such stuff. In perspective, for a $10 billion 92 year old company, there seems to be too much material on small scale negative areas where the firm wasn't even directly involved. Even mere allegations from individual groups have just been added. I did not revert because I'm not deep in enough on this to know it well. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem seems to be getting worse. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And worse.  The recent addition makes it appear that the US imposed sanctions as a part of the corruption investigation while it was actually for sanction violations. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creeping WP:Undue issues 

message: I have removed the recently added section as it contained non-neutral language, low-quality sources, and unsourced listcruft per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Without independent expert sources and additional encyclopedic context, such an indiscriminate trivial list is just PR fluff that doesn't add to an encyclopedic overview of the topic. The general observation, that several McKinsey alumni have later been appointed as CEOs or other high-level executives, is already covered in the "Influence" section in sufficient detail. Please discuss here if needed. GermanJoe (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alumni listcruft 

message: With a little digging I found the original USA Today article about McKinsey as "CEO factory": the link is . First of all this is not a "study", but a reader editor's article based on primary data and some random odd comparisons to create a spicy interesting article. Secondly the number of "produced" CEOs is far too low to create any meaningful statistical result, let alone a comparison with competitors (quoted from the article: "With numbers, you can make any point you want"). Lastly, the article fails to show any substantial correlation behind this data. In short, the results of this so-called "study" are not of encyclopedic relevance. GermanJoe (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "CEO factory" 

message: Did U.S. presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg formerly work for McKinsey & Company? 76.189.141.37 (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pete Buttigieg]]

message: An enormous part of the body is about various scandals and controversies related to McKinsey. Numerous COI accounts have sought to remove this content from the lead. A regular editor then aided the COI accounts in the whitewashing. The content should be restored ASAP. Puffery such as McKinsey advising the "world's leading businesses and nonprofits" should also be removed. We are not here to write an ad for this company. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  How are you? The reasons I removed it, mostly I think because these kinds of things must be enormous and world shaking before they are put in the lede, particularly in such a huge article. The article itself has increased in size by 40k since 2015 and needs to be drastically reduced I think. The days of being a good GA are long gone. For example, why is it discussing at length the number of employees it has in the lede, and using a low-quality Forbes reference to support it. From the lede: 1930s, the company's core values and principles and values were established.. I would sincerely like to have time to do it.  scope_creepTalk 18:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I started watching / got involved a bit here when there was a declared COI editor involved who went 200% by the rules and did excellent work.  Now they seem to have left. Seems like it's always slipping into being a hit piece (with overemphasis on local scandals considering the size and scope of the company and length of its history) or a PR piece. If there are other editors here who just want the article to be good then there's hope and I'll stick around.North8000 (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A phrase like  is empty corporate PR-speak, and  is somehow even worse. ("You said values twice!" "That's because it takes twice as many values as principles.") The writing in the lede is disjointed and not even copy-edited. XOR'easter (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yip, that's what I was alluding to, but it's not the only type of article that I seen of this condition. There is the Ogilvy (agency) article which is in similar condition, but is almost half the size with similar-ish length of history. There is really no need for article be so big. The people who write these articles know this, once it get to this size, it virtually impossible to break it up, but when I finish these two reviews I'm doing, I'm going to shrink it drastically. scope_creepTalk 00:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it needs reorganization as much as it needs shrinking; sections that should logically belong together are separated. For example, why is "Influence" a subsection of "Organization", while "Recruiting" is separate? "Media coverage and publications about McKinsey" seems to be a junk drawer. XOR'easter (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, regarding my previous post, this looks encouraging.   I think that the current article is a bruised and abused mess from conflicting sources.   Earlier IMO it was done well by a a wiki-good declared editor.  Later I think that it was a product of people who wanted to make it a "hit piece" including overwhelmingly large section on local controversies, plus maybe 1 or 2 undeclared COI pro-company editors.  North8000 (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The laudatory content is vague, the description of the controversies is disorganized, and the business history jams in details without any sense of why they might or might not be important. For example,  So what? How are those divisions even defined? Are they industry-standard terms, or are they divisions particular to McKinsey's? The "practice areas" are first defined as , and then  are added. Did "organization" consulting contribute no revenue? Was that 30% from "technology consulting" derived from the manufacturing tech or the business tech side? XOR'easter (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it! North8000 (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead should obviously mention some of the controversies 

message: I have removed about 5k of it on a copyedit, which has been much puff, multiple references as many as five per line, obvious statements, peacock terms, unsupported claims, unstructured list with encyclopedic benefits and names drops with no benefits and an undue section/quote with no academic balance.  scope_creepTalk 09:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: See WP:ANI#Edit-warring and likely sockpuppetry on McKinsey & Company — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an uninvolved editor and saw it there. I've commented there that I think this is an overreaction, that rather than some nefarious coordinated UPI, what we probably have are some random, unccordinated keen current or soon-to-join employees proud of where they work/will work, just like students tend to be proud of unversities where they study. As to the substance, I gather it's an edit war about whether to include a statement that Vault ranks McKinsey very highly among consulting firms/places to work. I haven't looked it up, but am pretty sure this is correct, and if sourced properly think it should be included in the article, since (for better or worse) Vault rankings are important in hiring new consultants. Yes, the inclusion of this casts McKinsey in a positive light, but that does not mean it is promotional. Many years ago, I worked for some time for McKinsey. So one could call me slightly-COI in that I guess I have an interest in having prior employers appear in a positive light. But I don't think I'm COI enough to preclude me from being able to edit or discuss editing this article. Martinp (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Returning a day later to add: the Vault rankings to me seen worthwhile enough to add somewhere in the article (e.g. the Recruiting section, since Vault.com is primarily about ranking employers), but not important enough to have in the lede. Thoughts from others? And I'm going to remove the big COI tag at top of article since it's really overkill for a tempest in a teapot debate about whether one fact should or shouldn't be in the lede, while the template adds text making it sound like a major contributor to the article has a COI (and therefore the whole text is suspect?) I'm pretty sure this can be sorted pretty easily with a bit of talk page discussion. Martinp (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Returning again 5 days later. There have been no comments, so I have reinstated the Vault.com material, but rather than in the lede (given multiple comments in the revert war edit summaries that it is not important enough for the lede...) I have put it in the recruiting section (given my opinion, as uninvoled editor but endorsed by other edit summaries) that it is notable in terms of university recruiting. Note that while it does indeed put McKinsey in a positive light, that in itself does not mean it is promotional content. If people disagree, let's discuss here and reach a consensus rather than continuing the slo-mo edit war on this sentence of recent months. Martinp (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

text: I'm neutral on this because there is a piece of info that I don't know and in a quick look was unable to  find out.  If vault is big/prominent regarding these types of ratings or if the vault rating is consistent with other similar ratings, then this is real information and good for the article.  If it fails one or both of those criteria, then it is likely bias-based cherry picking and then it is not informative and possibly misleading. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Vault is certainly prominent among consulting job applicants from universities (MBAs and undergraduate), though some would argue it preys on candidates' insecurities in selling them so-called "inside information" and "interview prep" materials of limited value. And I think there is a general understanding that McKinsey ranks either top or in the top-3 in strategic consulting firms. So I feel that this is a noncontroversial 3rd party source for a noncontroversial bit of information. Martinp (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vault.com rankings and COI tag (June 2022) 

message: I created a draft for Draft:When McKinsey Comes to Town. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New book When McKinsey Comes to Town 

message: — Assignment last updated by Kgl49! (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CRISIS COMMUNICATION

message: The picture shows all of 3 WTC -- 80 floors. McKinsey and Company occupy only 5 floors, about 6% of the building ... but the picture implies the building is their entire office. I've changed the caption to draw attention to the partial occupancy, but should the image be used at all? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-representative picture