Sneha Divakaran’s Reviews > When McKinsey Comes to Town > Status Update

Common thread: McKinsey consults with a company, and the corresponding regulatory govt agency, and it ends in a net negative for public welfare, though the organisations that hired the firm come out feeling they have done well. Tobacco is a case in point. It is insinuated that the firm played a part in consciously making cigarettes addictive with nicotine infused in them.

They advise regulators and market players, and it’s possible that there could be bias towards self propagation. This is problematic for many reasons.

I don’t agree with the writers, though, about their criticism against McKinsey for recommending downsizing and outsourcing. At the same time they criticise the size of payments made to the firm. If the firm’s advise isn’t expert, then the advise is common sense?