Talk:McKinsey & Company/Archive 2

Ownership

"McKinsey & Company is a privately owned management consulting firm ... ." Do we have any further information on this? Does partnership also entitle one to a share of ownership? Are shareholders necessarily partners? Is there a larger "private boss" or corporate owner who would have the final word over and above the managing director?

I'm not sure how openly the Firm discusses this, but only people employed at the Firm are allowed to own shares, and then only upon invitation by the other shareholders. There are restrictions as to how many shares any one individual can own, and the shares are not transferable. In practice, there are three levels of shareholdership: associate principals, principals, and directors. The managing director is a director. He/she is elected by the other directors and functions as a "first among equals" with very little formal power beyond the support of the various committees. All shareholders must sell back their shares to the firm at book value when they enter a retirement window, die, or leave the Firm. It's all very restricted. --Leifern 20:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Associate Principals do not own shares in the Firm. McKinsey itself is incorporated, so "shares" quite literally refers to shares in a corporation. Whether this is just a background register os the share register actually gets updated every year I don't know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorfl68 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

McKinsey Foundation for Management Research

This appears to be a grant and prize giving organization, presumably attached to McKinsey. I cant seem to find any real detail though, anyone got anything? Justinc (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added a multiple issues tag to the top of the page

To explain why, I'll quote a discussion one user and I were having about this pagespace:

• "How would you suggest I handle a situation like this? A Wikipedia administrator informally disclosed an intense real-life negative COI/bias about a company. However, he didn't stick to the Talk page, but instead has made edits that paint a very reputable company as "shadowy."

I'll request you more closely identify the party or parties involved and the edits you judge as painting. I could make some assumptions based on my reading of the pages, but I want to be sure we're talking about the same situation and circumstances.

User ProhibitOnions has revealed a clear bias and was heavily involved in the article a few years ago. Other neutral editors also got involved. For example, the article states

• "journalists and writers have had difficulty developing fully informed accounts of mistakes which McKinsey employees may have made."
• McKinsey's Investment Office is "secretive and low-profile"
• Stuff like not discussing client situations or disclosing fee structures are under "Criticism" even though these are routine business practices and a standard of professional conduct.

Some of these are pretty overt, but others are more complex. IMHO bullets 1 & 3 are just patent junk, but #2 is at least based on one blogger's criticism of some complex, IRS-approved tax arrangements for which the investment office was involved. But it's an example of a complex scenario involving multiple bias editors where I could be required to sort things out with a potentially confrontational editor with admin rights. Of course, Prohibit hasn't even touched the article in years... King4057 (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd start by placing {{citation needed}} tags at the end of any questionable statements. In a BLP, such uncited assertions would be immediately actionable, and in this case, I tend to think several uncited assertions violate our pillar of neutrality. I wouldn't concern myself with the editor or editors; instead I would focus on the pagespace. "Furthermore, knowing that a competitor has hired McKinsey has historically been strong motivation for other companies to seek McKinsey's assistance themselves." Really? Who said so? That's a pretty egregious violation of OR unless one could cite it with multiple sources. Let us start our mentoring process by trying to do the right thing in this case, and see what other editors say. BusterD (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)"

For the record, the italicized words above are my responses to User:King4057. This comes in the context of his request for mentorship as a paid editor, and from our discussion to determine whether he and I would be a good fit in such an arrangement. I'd like input from other editors about what has been discussed above. Did I do the right thing by adding the template at the top of the page, and do other editors agree with my placement of cite needed tags? I'll take the liberty of notifying User:ProhibitOnions we're discussing edits the user made. BusterD (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I was coming at this as an example where diplomacy skills could be needed and apologize if our discussion comes off as combative. I'll add as a disclaimer of sorts that some of the article text currently marked [citation needed] really does just need a citation, while other areas have a citation that doesn't support the article text. In some instances the tone isn't encyclopedic, but there are facts it's based on. I'm working with McKinsey on a set of discussion points that I hope will foster a quality, detailed discussion. I have a COI with McKinsey, so will stick to Talk pages and sandboxes. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 15:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for showing up late to the party. Not sure what I've missed. Just wanted to say that I'm happy to help as well. I think we have a great process in place to fix this page -- let's put everything in talk pages, hammer it out, and then make changes to the main page as necessary.

Also, I'm okay with having the "multiple issues" tag up, but think we should work quickly to get it to the point where we can take it down. Don't want to keep it up there longer than, say, a month.

Finally, good luck with the mentor-mentee stuff! Sounds like fun.

My2011 (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to join the discussion and clean up process. I like My2011's approach that for controversial issues, we discuss first, gain consensus and then make changes. While I agree that tags should not stay up any longer than they have to, we can't put any arbitrary time limit on it. A month is fine as a goal, but sooner or later than that is also OK. It should stay up as long as it needs to. I also agree with BusterD that we should focus on current article and not worry about someone did in the past......At first glance it appears to me that the article has some neutrality issues. But I'd like to look at the article from the top down. I'll start the first thread below. I look forward to working together.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

:-D great, let's get going! My2011 (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay My2011. I was soliciting for a second opinion on my neutrality, but we might as well have the discussion here. I've added my comments below on the Galleon scandal.

Below is my best take at a neutral and accurate set of facts on the Galleon scandal, but I appreciate help by more impartial editors. I added a fresh COI disclosure. My hope is we can collaborate to bring the article up to B or C class. I just saw the updates and apologize for upsetting the top-down flow. I had been working on this offline unaware of the proposed plan and was shooting for the hard stuff first. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 02:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I take exception to the accusations of "clear bias" made against me above. At the time I edited the article, it had clearly been written by McKinsey insiders, and gave an overly positive impression of the firm. Among other things, I added several counter-examples to balance things out. The three examples stated above are hardly inaccurate, and the phrasing made it clear that some criticisms of McK can be leveled against all consulting firms. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Organization section

I'm not sure the lead properly summarizes the article, but I'd like to work on the article first and get it right, then go back and re-summarize the lead as needed. So I'll put aside my concerns on the lead for now :-)

• Is this sentence (below) editorializing or is does it have a source? If so, can someone quote from the source to support the text below? The block quote in the article says the company is like an "academic organization".
  • Current article text: "McKinsey & Company, while formally organized as a corporation, functions as a partnership in all important respects"
• Propose we remove: "curently Dominic Barton". If we want to say who is the MD, than make a sentence and put it in the administration section.
  • "Its managing director (currently Dominic Barton) is elected for a three-year term by the firm's other senior partners."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob! Here's some quick googling -- I don't have time today to work on this article, but feel free to suggest changes:

• "McKinsey is a partnership": http://www.mckinsey.com/locations/swiss/faq/
• "McKinsey is organized as a corporation": http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/mckinsey011105-exa.pdf
• where would you prefer putting "currently Dominic Barton"?

thx, My2011 (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MY, for locating these sources. Even so, the current sentence seems a bit like editorializing or WP:OR (combining two sources and drawing a conclusion)to me. It appears to create doubt about how the organization is run, when in reality there is no conflict or unorthodox corporate structure. I think it would be more accurate to say something like "MC is a corporation owned and administrated by more than 1,000 partners around the world." Are you OK, with a sentence like that? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see all the issues being discussed here. Shall we take it one sentence at a time? For the first sentence, how about: McKinsey is a self-governing partnership[1] formally organized as a corporation.[2]

This would cut out the editorializing "in all important respects" in the first sentence and make it not appear more confusing than it needs to be per Keithbob's note, though it will still need more explanation. User:King4057 14:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the phrase that bothers me. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to dig into it yet, but I've been advised by McKinsey that some of the information under Organization is now outdated and there are likely reliable sources to update it with. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 02:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, if there are reliable secondary sources than we can certainly include those. Let us know what you find. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Notable current and former employees section

• Propose we add to this list of notable former employees: David H. McCormick co-Chief Executive Officer at Bridgewater Associates and the former Under Secretary for International Affairs within the United States Department of the Treasury.
• Propose we move this entire section to the bottom of the article as it breaks up the flow of the written text. Lists traditionally go at the bottom of articles.
• Propose we move the list of "curent" partners to the Organization/administration section. It seems awkward having a list of former and current employees under one heading and current admins are important whereas alumni are not so important and should go lower down the page.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The section is awkward to me too. Move it to wherever you wish. The reason there's some confusion between current and former is that senior partners emeriti are formally retired, but continue to draw resources from mckinsey (office, phone, secretary, etc.). So the boundaries between alumni and current is blurry. If you want to split it up, remove Dominic Barton and Michael Patsalos-Fox and keep the others; change the heading to "notable alumni." David McCormick is fine to add. Just my 2c. My2011 (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Since there seem to be no objections, I have gone ahead and made those changes.  Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Keith, I think you lost Ron Daniel, Ian Davis, Rajat Gupta and Anil Kumar in the move. Was this a mistake? If so I can just add them back. Thx My[2011] (talk) | 21:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I updated this section with Gupta+Kumar+Tom Peters, who I know are notable, and left out Daniel+Davis (from my above comment), who I'm not sure. Just fyi. This should be a noncontroversial edit. My[2011] (talk) | 01:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

As discussed above, I have a financial COI with McKinsey & Company in that they’ve recruited me to help them navigate through Wikipedia and COI Best Practices. I’d like to help improve the McKinsey article through collaboration with neutral volunteers better qualified to be impartial, especially in controversial areas.

Galleon Scandal

I’d like to contribute some detailed information and reliable sources on the Galleon scandal as it relates to McKinsey.

Bulleted cited information for consideration of including in the article

In January 2010, former McKinsey partner Anil Kumar pleaded guilty to providing insider information to Raj Rajaratnam, then head of the Galleon Group hedge fund. Anil Kumar had been pitching McKinsey’s consulting services to the Galleon Group, when Rajaratnam made a private consulting agreement with Kumar, violating McKinsey policies against outside consulting deals. To avoid detection by McKinsey, Kumar followed Rajaratnam’s instructions to setup a Swiss bank account for a shell company in Geneva. Kumar soon realized the consulting Rajaratnam was after was inside information about some of his clients at McKinsey and felt obligated by his financial payments to provide them. The Galleon scandal was embarrassing for McKinsey, for whom integrity and protecting client confidentiality is a major premise of the business. McKinsey was not accused of any wrongdoing. Kumar broke McKinsey’s confidentiality policies in the incident. Several years after stepping down as McKinsey managing director in 2003, Rajat Gupta joined the boards of Goldman Sachs and Proctor & Gamble, among others. In October 2011, prosecutors and the SEC charged Gupta for allegedly sharing insider information from board meetings with Rajaratnam. During Raj Rajaratnam’s trial, a wiretap recording showed he and his brother had tried to approach recently deceased McKinsey consultant David Palecek. His widow's lawyer claims he was approached, but refused to be a part of the incident. McKinsey responded to the Galleon scandal by launching an independent inquiry, keeping partners and staff informed, reassuring stakeholders, tightening procedure, and performing an external review of its values and practices. No hard evidence has suggested the scandal has had an impact on the McKinsey brand, but there is speculation that it will have an impact even 10 or 20 years down the road. Other than the 2 former McKinsey employees involved, over 60 people have been charged in relation to the Galleon insider trading scandal. The investigation, known as Operation Perfect Hedge, expects to make over 100 additional arrests in the next 5 years.

17 References as cited in the bullets
References

This also offers a lot of detailed clarifications on some items already in the article. For example, that David was “approached” rather than “involved”, that Gupta was allegedly involved in the Proctor and Goldman leaks after leaving McKinsey, and so on.

There are a lot of details related to McKinsey we can add to get all the facts out there, but McKinsey is also just one of many parties of some relevance to the scandal. I feel the current article has some general information about the scandal that may be better placed improving the stub on Operation Perfect Hedge with a “See main article."User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 15:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to assemble this information for our consideration. When I have more time I'd like to look through the sources and then comment further. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot that I want to write about this. What's the best way to present it to you? Bullet form? Point by point? so much writing, so little time! :) MY[2011] (talk) | 23:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean about McKinsey specifically or the Galleon scandal in general? I'm a prolific bulleteer myself and that would make it easy to compare notes. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 15:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry -- I meant as a response to this section. Will try to do it this weekend. :) hope that isn't too late. take care! MY[2011] (talk) | 18:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. RE being too late - on the contrary that's very prompt! I'll check in on Monday and combine the article, your bullets and my bullets on the Talk page. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 00:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

My2011's response

User:King4057: Thanks very much for your hard work in putting together these points. I've separated my response -- and of course there may be many other responses by many other people -- into two sections: "passive" concerns and questions with COI in general, and "active" responses (both general and specific) to your suggested edits. Please don't take anything in either section too personally: it's just me trying to provide the most useful pushback as I can, and to represent everyone fairly.

User:Keithbob: Would love your perspective on these.

Nice detailed response. Where should I put my comments? Re: COI, all the point you make are true but given Wikipedia's archaic system for dealing with concerns from individuals and corporations about being accurately and fairly represented, what else can they do except what King is doing? The same incongruity exists in many disputes on Wikipedia. Some editors work on Wikipedia full time while others just come once in a while. Guess who usually wins those debates? So we just have proceed with what we have. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I just hate the imbalances. I just worry about keeping everything fair and unbiased. Put comments wherever, or maybe start a new "====" section, or instead indent off my "point by point" table? My[2011] (talk) | 00:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like there's plenty of hands in the pot from volunteer editors more qualified to be impartial. Sincerely appreciate the civility and AGF. I'll wait until updated copy is posted in the article space and just pop in if anything jumps out at me. Meanwhile, I'm working on the History & Organization sections offline and will post updates when I have a solid draft. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 23:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, King, happy to help. Waiting for Keithbob's responses to the tables below. My[2011] (talk) | 22:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by My2011 (talk • contribs)

I agree with the points made by My2011 in the Point by Point section.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerns with COI

I've never dealt with a COI editor before, much less one who makes substantive and thoughtful changes (as your table certainly is!). Here are my concerns about the potential imbalances in this process (with any COI, not you): time: you simply have more time to write material access: you have privileged access to primary source material, allowing you to find secondary sources easily -- unlike ordinary editors who often have to work backward from the secondary sources to summarize information appropriately bias: you may (but not necessarily) be biased. In this particular case I'm especially concerned about the other guys -- Messers. Gupta, Kumar, Rajaratnam, and the late Mr. Palecek. They don't have anyone standing up for them to provide neutrality and balance, so I guess that falls on the non-COI editors? How do we ensure fairness and neutrality? scariness: in general, you may (but not necessarily) be intimidating; what if I say something your employer doesn't like? can they come after me?

Concerns with table

1) I'm confused why you would want to add MORE detail to this section. If it is actually a "scandal" wouldn't McKinsey want to gloss over it? Irrespective of McKinsey's wishes, isn't its relevance going to be diminished over time, and therefore shouldn't the lines devoted to it decrease? 2) It's not focused enough on McKinsey For the purposes of my comments below I don't care about Operation Perfect Hedge. So in the following (point-by-point) section I'm going to be aggressive about taking out stuff that seems irrelevant, or not focused on McKinsey as an institution and organization. You'll see some "not relevant" etc. I have also tired to be extra careful in representing all parties when you talk about third parties other than McKinsey -- though (see point above) it's hard to know what their actual wishes are, as their side is not represented (only McKinsey's is). 3) Article spread You seem to be relying heavily on some articles (like citation 4); I'd love to see more variety. 4) PR-speak Some of the points feel like corporate spin. 5) Synthesis (optional) "The Galleon scandal" incorporates Rajat Gupta, Anil Kumar, and David Palecek. I'm not sure dealing with them sequentially is the logical way to go about it, since it's over the same time among highly interconnected parties. But this is an optional point.

Point-by-point comments

In January 2010, former McKinsey partner Anil Kumar pleaded guilty[1][2] to providing insider information to Raj Rajaratnam, then head of the Galleon Group hedge fund.[3] This is fine, except Mr. Kumar was a senior partner and his seniority was relevant. Just change "partner" to "senior partner". For Rajaratnam, I would say "founder and head." Anil Kumar had been pitching McKinsey’s consulting services to the Galleon Group, when Rajaratnam made a private consulting agreement with Kumar,[4] violating McKinsey policies against outside consulting deals.[4] That article says McKinsey had been pitching its services to Galleon, not Mr. Kumar. To avoid detection by McKinsey, Kumar followed Rajaratnam’s instructions to setup a Swiss bank account for a shell company in Geneva.[4] Not relevant to McKinsey, and already on Kumar's wiki page. Kumar soon realized the consulting Rajaratnam was after was inside information about some of his clients at McKinsey and felt obligated by his financial payments to provide them.[4] Not relevant to McKinsey, and already on Kumar's wiki page. The Galleon scandal was embarrassing for McKinsey,[1][3][4] for whom integrity and protecting client confidentiality is a major premise of the business.[5] And yet there has been no damage -- in fact the firm grew. This should be added: "To date, there is no firm evidence of damage to McKinsey’s business." McKinsey was not accused of any wrongdoing.[6][7][8] Kumar broke McKinsey’s confidentiality policies[4] in the incident. This seems OK -- let's see how it fits into the flow after the other edits (see point about synthesis). Several years after stepping down as McKinsey managing director in 2003, Rajat Gupta joined the boards of Goldman Sachs and Proctor & Gamble, among others. In October 2011, prosecutors and the SEC charged Gupta for allegedly sharing insider information from board meetings with Rajaratnam.[6][9] And yet he had an office, assistant, and benefits paid by McKinsey. He made those calls from McKinsey's offices. He was publicly styled "the senior partner worldwide of McKinsey" at the time these offenses are alleged. These are extremely pertinent facts, and should likely be included in the article. The SEC also charged him in March 2011, so that needs changing too. During Raj Rajaratnam’s trial, a wiretap recording showed he and his brother had tried to approach recently deceased McKinsey consultant David Palecek. His widow claims he was approached, but refused to be a part of the incident.[10][11] Not "tried to appoach," actually approached. If you're including the widow you should include the other guy: for example, you should say, "Mr. Rajaratnam's brother described Mr. Palecek as "a little dirty" and considered hiring Mr. Palecek's wife in Galleon." You have to present both sides. McKinsey responded to the Galleon scandal by launching an independent inquiry, keeping partners and staff informed, reassuring stakeholders, tightening procedure,[10] and performing an external review of its values and practices.[3] Seems OK, but how is this worth mentioning or relevant? Wouldn't any company do this? Feels like PR-speak. No hard evidence has suggested the scandal has had an impact on the McKinsey brand,[6][9] but there is speculation that it will have an impact even 10 or 20 years down the road.[3] How about something like: "There is no evidence of any damage to McKinsey's brand, and the firm's revenues grew 10% during the same period. Its long term impact remains unknown." (see comment above) Other than the 2 former McKinsey employees involved, over 60 people have been charged in relation to the Galleon insider trading scandal.[12][13][14][15] Not relevant to McKinsey. Also there were three former consultants, not two. The investigation, known as Operation Perfect Hedge,[16][13] expects to make over 100 additional arrests in the next 5 years.[12][17][14] Not relevant to McKinsey.

Phew!! All done. MY[2011] (talk) | 00:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review My2011. I think I have implemented your feedback in the below revised. A few notes:

• I found that I used citations excessively. At one point the same citation was used twice in the same sentence. So I just trimmed them back.
• I put that "McKinsey and Kumar" were pitching for Galleon Group's business, since the article also goes into depth about Kumar's involvement.
• I added a few things from the current article and around Gupta's use of a McKinsey phone

Let me know if you have any questions. My Talk page is always open as well if you have questions about my COI. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 23:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Revised Galleon scandal

Former McKinsey executives Anil Kumar and Rajat Gupta were among those charged in Operation Perfect Hedge for allegedly sharing insider trading information with then Galleon Group hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam. McKinsey was not accused of any wrongdoing, however the scandal was embarrassing for McKinsey, for whom integrity and protecting client confidentiality is a major premise of its business. Former senior partner Anil Kumar pleaded guilty in January 2010. McKinsey executives and Kumar had been pitching McKinsey's consulting services to the Galleon Group, when Kumar and Rajaratnam reached a private consulting agreement, violating McKinsey's policies against outside consulting deals. Kumar also broke McKinsey's confidentiality policies. During Raj Rajaratnam's trial, a wiretap recording showed he and his brother had also contacted recently deceased McKinsey consultant David Palecek, saying he was "a little dirty." His widow said he was approached, but refused to be a part of the incident. After stepping down as McKinsey's managing director in 2003, Rajat Gupta joined the boards of Goldman Sachs and Proctor & Gamble, among others. In March 2011, the SEC charged Gupta for allegedly sharing insider information from these board meetings with Rajaratnam. Before McKinsey severed all ties with Gupta as a result of the incident, he had the title of "senior partner emeritus" as a former McKinsey managing director. At least twice, Gupta used a McKinsey phone to call Rajaratnam and had access to other perks as a senior McKinsey alumni. Gupta countersued the SEC. In August 2011. Both Gupta's and the SEC's suits were dropped. In October 2011 the SEC filed charges again. Gupta surrendered to the FBI on criminal charges on October 26, 2011 and the SEC filed a civil complaint based on the same set of allegations. The cases are ongoing. Gupta has maintained his innocence. After the scandal McKinsey performed an independent review of its policies and procedures. There is no evidence of any damage to McKinsey's brand. The firm's revenues grew 10% during the same period, but its long term impact remains unknown.|} Just an FYI regarding this conversation; I think My2011 is going to merge the Galleon sections whenever he gets a chance. He hasn't made any contributions in a few days - probably just busy IRL. If anyone else wants to do the merge I think that would be fine too. Afterwards we can all give it a final run-through. We've definitely done the topic justice and we have a huge improvement here thanks to some great work by all here on the Talk page. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 17:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Doing the merge right now, sorry for the delay. My[2011] (talk) | 22:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Made the merge as best I could -- also cleared up some temporal issues to describe the period 2009-2012 with more clarity. My[2011] (talk) | 00:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC) References Extended content Office Locations I have moved the office locations section to the bottom of the article as it breaks up the content and is distracting to the reader. If anyone objects I ask that they please discuss here first before reverting my move. While I appreciate that someone took a lot of time to assemble all those nice flags, it is not a useful format and does not conform with WP:MOS which prefers prose over lists. I feel that it also gives WP:UNDUE weight to a minor part of the article ie that the company has dozens of locations all over the globe. It is my opinion that offices should be reduced to a few sentences of prose and included in the Organization and Administration section. Thoughts? Comments anyone?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Keith. I couldn't agree more. The information in this section is a replica of McKinsey's own Global Locations page. In my opinion it offers no value to the reader, though it's disheartening to say knowing someone put in a lot of effort formatting the section. This might help as a starting point: McKinsey has about 100 offices in over 50 countries. In McKinsey's early history in 1933 it had only 19 professionals in two offices. Offices in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco were established in the 1940s. The first international office was opened in London in 1959. Other offices in the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, France and Switzerland were opened in the 1960s. The firm also has offices across Asia, Australia, Africa, South America and the Middle East. ^ a b "Global Locations". McKinsey & Company. Retrieved April 10, 2012. ^ a b Amar, Bhidé (March, 1996), Building the Professional Firm: McKinsey & Co.: 1939-1968, pp. 14-17, retrieved April 10, 2012 ^ "About Us History Page". McKinsey & Company. Retrieved April 10, 2012. ^ "McKinsey & Company on Forbes' America's Largest Private Companies list. November 3, 2010. Retrieved 2011-01-01. ^ "Swiss Office - Key Facts". McKinsey & Company. Retrieved April 10, 2012. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 15:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Excellent. I vote we replace the current collection of flags with the copy you have suggested above. Let's see if others agree. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC) I really feel bad for the guy who made all the flags. Is there any way we can avoid just overwriting his work? Also, do we want to put any statistics on office expansion in this section --- e.g. the Firm grew from X offices to Y in these years. MY[2011] (talk) | 22:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC) I'm working on a draft History section. I'll keep an eye out for landmarks on how many offices McKinsey had in different decades. We could change "List of McKinsey & Company people" to "List of McKinsey & Co. People and Offices" and put it there. Since it's a list article anyway, it seems appropriate. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 00:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC) That's OK with me if it doesn't violate any WP:LIST guidelines.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC) OK with me too! My[2011] (talk) | 17:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)  Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC) PS the list of office locations are now here. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC) One more landmark for # of offices I came upon in my History research: In 1933 McKinsey & Company had 19 professionals in two offices. I suggest we put Offices as a sub-section under Organization & administration. What do you think? User:King4057 13:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Request edit I would like to request the following be added under a new "Office Locations" section under Organization per the discussion above, where we discussed replacing the prior exhaustive list with something more succinct and historic. User:King4057 18:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC) McKinsey & Company has about 100 offices in over 50 countries. Offices in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco were established in the 1940s. The first international office was opened in London in 1959. Other offices in the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, France and Switzerland were opened in the 1960s. The firm also has offices across Asia, Australia, Africa, South America and the Middle East. I have not checked the sources but the copy looks good. I think you should just go ahead and post it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Talk page cleanup There seems to be a time constraint -- or an impending snowstorm of viewers -- so we should get the talk page into good shape so we can iterate on what has to be done during next week (which will be very high profile) etc. I archived talk content before 2011. What's important or left to do on the main page? My[2011] (talk) | 01:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Hi My2011. Sorry I have been taking WP:NORUSH a little far and thanks for chipping in. I'll bring up some more issues and improvements soon. User:King4057 13:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC) History questions There are a few points in the history section that I am unclear about: "In 1935 Marshall Field's became a client and in 1935 convinced McKinsey to leave the firm and become its CEO." did the 2 events occur simultaneously? How did this lead to a merger? Was it because the company without him could not stand on its own? But the next paragraph says his death in 37 led to a division of the company in 39, so did he remain with the company in some manner? do we need an article on Scovell, Wellington & Company, and on C Oliver Wellington? I'm also look at some more general problems in the article : the rather frequent use of adjective, for example. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC) DGG, I keep promising a draft history section and slipping on my self-imposed deadline. Soon I should have something to share - not a draft per se - in that I'm not asking for "approval and implementation" but a huge dump of information and sources (25+ citations) that will give us a good starting point for further improvement and discussion. User:King4057 14:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Draft History I have attached a draft history section at: Talk:McKinsey & Company/McKinseyHistory for further discussion and improvement. My intention isn't to request immediate implementation, but just to provide a dump of information to make the section more complete and specific. I find that reliable sources have extreme POVs on McKinsey (both positive and negative) and relied heavily on three fairly comprehensive sources: a negative one, a neutral/academic one, and a positive one among others. I'm happy to help out wherever asked to show where information is in an article, provide context, etc. There are several discussion points top of mind: Although there are several reliable sources calling McKinsey the "father of," I still agree with BusterD's assessment that this is fluffy language and have replaced it I've contributed a good chunk of information on Gupta's tenure, though this is about his contributions as managing director and not particularly controversial I am not sure how to handle an article like this, which documents a petty legal dispute, but seems to suggest sinister behavior, without anything specific to report. Vast amounts of the content here could be restructured under various sections. For example, the history of when various committees were formed could go under Organization eventually or a new section on Leadership could go through all the managing directors. The current draft documents successes and failures. For example, it includes early disagreements between partners that led to a company split, losing a major steel client and getting hit by the dot-com bust. It even includes the somewhat quirky background about Bower and dress code. However, I'm not sure if we're suppose to paraphrase major controversies in the History section?? I know they are also suppose to eventually get summarized in the lead. I am still looking for ways to build out the Recent History section User:King4057 18:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Just listing as a {{edit COI}} to solicit for feedback and discussion. User:King4057 18:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Hi King, I like your draft history! To be honest I just skimmed it briefly, so have just a few points that jumped out at me. As we’ve previously discussed, I’m looking at this from a Galleon-centric lens for now, and then time permitting will look at the rest. 1) Because you mention that Ron Daniel was coached by Marvin Bower, you should also mention that Ron Daniel coached Rajat Gupta and that Rajat Gupta coached Anil Kumar. 2) Rajat Gupta: the line "He was elected to execute on an expansion strategy.” surprised me. Do you have a source for this? You should also add a line like “which was later controversial,” even though I know you mention it in the Davis-era. 3) Anil Kumar: I remember reading that he headed McKinsey’s internet operations, so he should be mentioned in connection with the accelerators, dot-com offices (and bust), and stock reimbursement. 4) Indian School of Business: was cofounded by Gupta and Kumar, not “others”. 5) various tightening and word choice that we can work on later. My[2011] (talk) | 19:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks My2011. Responses to each of your numbers below. 1)I'll see if I can dig up sources on the mentorship of each managing director. Several of them are already mentioned in the Organization and Controversy sections. I'm not sure as to the editorial guidelines on minor editorial redundancies. Do you have a source for Ron Daniel coaching Gupta? I did a few Google searches and haven't been able to find anything. This is already mentioned later in the article, but I can't find it in the citation provided there either. 2) I remember reading that, but can't seem to pin point it now. I just took off the first part. For the latter I think the current text is more specific/encyclopedic than the broad stroke editorial of saying it was "controversial" but it's not really that important. I'll leave the decision up to impartial volunteer editors like yourself. 3) Ok - I did some research and here's what I found: Kumar was a director in the electronics commerce practice at the time (not the head of the practice, just one of its directors). Gupta pushed McKinsey to take on internet startups and was heavily quoted.[3] I didn't find anything saying a specific individual was solely responsible for it, but that doesn't mean sources aren't potentially out there. Do you remember where you read it? 4) Double-checked the sources and fixed. 5) Sure thing. I'm working on some potential additions as well, in particular to build out the recent history. So, it's a work in progress. User:King4057 17:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Quick replies: 1) Citation here, I think (haven’t really looked): http://sree.net/stories/bt-gupta.html 2) I'd say leave “controversial” in, but let’s see how it flows 3) I’m pretty sure he ran ecommerce — this was in one of the online testimony transcripts — but I’ll have to dig deeper to confirm. Don’t have time right now. 4) great 5) how should I suggest word edits? should I just edit your “proposed history” directly? My[2011] (talk) | 18:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Yup, feel free to edit the draft as I will continue editing as well. I don't think we need to discuss minor language changes, but we can revisit the Talk page as needed. User:King4057 15:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC) King, I have more problems than I thought with your draft history section: 1) It's too long. The existing section is 350 words. Yours is five times longer (1800 words). 2) It's biased. No history of an organization over 100 years old is completely devoid of failures. The closest you come is one line about a "culture clash" in 1989. 3) It's poorly sourced. Many sources are incorrect or missing. (Also, I don't believe Vault a reliable source.) 4) It appears to contains nonpublic information, such as McKinsey's budget for knowledge management. 5) Undue weight is given to early history. The section on twenty years (1920-1930) is 9 paragraphs, and forty years (1960-1990) is only 3 paragraphs. I'll make some comments on the draft history section itself (at Talk:McKinsey & Company/McKinseyHistory) and you can see the comments by looking at my diffs. Thanks, My[2011] (talk) | 00:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC) I've edited the draft from a copy point of view (I did not check the sources) and removed off topic and gratuitous info from the early sections. I think the current length is fine.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks Keithbob. I just restored the one phrase about their principles. At a glance it probably looked like I was editorializing, but they are very specific items McKinsey is known for. My2011, the knowledge management budget is on page 12 of the source. Failures include the ICG acquisition, the dot-com bust and related information, the loss in market share to BCG and other items that belong in the Controversy section. Hopefully I cleared up the confusion about citations, but let me know if you have other questions about where information can be found in the source and I'll help point them out. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 18:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC) If they are that notable and important then I think we should list them word for word and put them in quotes to avoid plagiarism and to let the reader know WP is not editorializing on this point. Will that work? Here's what the source says: In short, the rules are these: A McKinsey consultant is supposed to put the interests of his client ahead of increasing The Firm's revenues; he should keep his mouth shut about his client's affairs; he should tell the truth and not be afraid to challenge a client's opinion; and he should only agree to perform work that he feels is both necessary and something McKinsey can do well. Along with the professional code, Bower insisted on professional, as opposed to business, language, which is why McKinsey is always The Firm, never the company; jobs are engagements; and The Firm has a practice, not a business. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Works for me. I went a head and replaced the prior content with the Fortune quote in the draft. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 17:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC) King, I'm having trouble following all the edits and back and forth on this -- and I see you just put up another request for edit? -- is there anything you need us to do? I thought we had taken care of it? thanks My[2011] (talk) | 08:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Hi My2011. As a next step, you may - at your discretion - choose to do any of the following: Comment below on whether the draft history section is ready for article-space, so a consensus can be reached on whether it should be moved. If you feel confident the section is an improvement over the current, you may choose to approve the request edit and move it to article-space Alternatively, you can also replace the request edit with a {{edit COI | D | A}} to suggest that I implement the edits myself. Finally, if you feel the section has significant problems or omissions that need to be fixed, you may suggest specific changes or additions that you feel are needed before it is moved to article-space User:King4057 20:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC) I would add some of the text already in the history section such as McKinsey's death. Reference "ninetytwo" metadata is not in the draft even though it's called a few times. --Patrick (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Oh I see, at some point in the editing over the last month or so, the data for citation 92 got cut out. I've re-incorporated it. The information on McKinsey's death was taken out in this edit last month by Keithbob under the rationale that he wanted it to focus more on the company and less on the people. I think either way is fine, if someone wants to be bold and make a choice there. User:King4057 22:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC) I added in some of the text from the current history section. I also rewrote and removed some part to use slightly less pov based words. Please let me know if you disagree with any of the changes. I think I was able to keep all the references correct. While I think the draft is a bit long, I see no problem with moving it to the main article and let the masses descend on it if they want it shorter. Cheers, --Patrick (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Looks good. Thanks for chipping in! I just added back in and modified one sentence on the book being the founding of managerial accounting. On the surface it probably sounded boastful, but it's actually an attempt at modesty, since many sources call McKinsey "the father of managerial accounting" due to the book. User:King4057 15:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC) My mistake, I should have probably left the sentence in as it was a highly influential book. Everything looks good. If you want to do the honor and move the draft into the section, please go ahead. Cheers, --Patrick (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Request Edit After having been vetted discussed with editors interested in the subject, I would like to request consideration of the draft History section here. User:King4057 18:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC) After reviewing the draft & making a few changes incorporating text from the current history section, I feel that new content is free of basis and has no reason to not belong in the mainspace. Since King4057 put in so much work in rewriting the section, I've feel the user should move over the content. --Patrick (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC) InfoBox McKinsey & Company Company type Incorporated Partnership Industry Management consulting Founded 1926 Founder James O. McKinsey and Marvin Bower Number of locations about 100 offices in 50 countries Key people Dominic Barton (Managing Director 2009 - present) Ian Davis (Managing Director 2003 - 2009) Rajat Gupta (Managing Director 1994 - 2003) Fred Gluck (Managing Director 1988 - 1994) Ron Daniel (Managing Director 1976 - 1988) Services Management consulting services Revenue $ 7 billion (est. 2010) AUM over $ 5 billion (MIO Partners) Number of employees 17,000 (9,000 consultants) Website www.mckinsey.com If we're taking the article top-to-bottom, the true top of the article is the infobox! As a small, tactical matter, I would like to update the infobox to "about 100" offices in 50 countries, rather than "over 100" in 45 countries. (see from our Offices discussion) According to the extensive article I've been reading, McKinsey's leaders were called "Managing Partner" until 1956. When the firm incorporated they were called "Managing Director." I believe their titles should be "Managing Director Emeritus" rather than "Senior Partner." Senior partners are elected to the role of managing director. Gupta presents an exception. Since McKinsey has broken their ties[4] it's probably not accurate to call him "emeritus" rather than "former." My2011 will know the context here. The updated infobox would look like this. User:King4057 15:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Hey, I like the new info box! So I did some digging, and here’s what I found. The managing director is elected from the other directors. Thus when he steps down he becomes just a director again. When any director retires, he becomes director emeritus. Director and senior partner mean the same thing, so are interchangeable. (Ron Daniel stepped down in the 80s and called himself “director at McKinsey” in a 2004 Harvard bio. Presumably he hadn’t retired yet? [wow]) Thus every person on your list — including Gupta — carries the title “Senior Partner Emeritus and former Worldwide Managing Director.” So just put dates by their names, as follows: Dominic Barton (Managing director 2009-present) Ron Daniel (Managing Director 1976-1988) Fred Gluck (Managing Director 1988-1994) Rajat Gupta (Managing Director 1994-2003) Ian Davis (Managing Director 2003-2009) thanks, My[2011] (talk) | 07:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Sounds good. Revised on the right. Thanks again My2011. User:King4057 21:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Very strong disagreement. The current MD goes in the infobox, the earlier ones go in the article. The infobox is intended as a quick summary of current basic information. I shall move them. (if they were going to be added, they would need to be added under additional labels, not the same field. The box is structured data.) As for the wording, yes, I like the current solution. But the section on the organization of the firm, though now clear, has considerable duplication that should be removed. The last sentence is redundant, except for mentioning Patsalos-Fox; --he should be moved somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC) While I was at it, I made some basic style changes, though I did not catch them everywhere We normally link names at the first mention only, unless the article is unusually long--this one is not. We normally refer to people by their last name only after the first mention, except when needed for clarity or perhaps once or twice more for emphasis at a particular point. We try to avoid using long dashes in article content. We connect a span of years with an en dash. I put these in as characters from the keyboard, though some people code them in html to make clear they are not hyphens. A few simple ones among the remaining problems: Some of the "as of" data is as of 2004, & needs updating. This can be done without first giving it on the talk page. "a 1993 Fortune profile" -- surely there's something more recent. The paragraph on Gupta's salary has a part in parentheses that needs clarification. The company name is not repeatedly mentioned. Most of the time, "The firm" is actually clearer. Dollar equivalents from 1994 to current value need to be updated , and the relevant date of equivalence given -- not "today" The word "top" used repeatedly, especially in the recruitment section, is an uncited value judgment. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks DGG. As a heads up, I've also included detailed information about each managing director in depth in the draft history section, though I'm still curious if that section should be broken up by subject. For example, there is enough content in the history draft to create a Leadership section solely on the history of McKinsey's managing directors. It's impractical for me to contribute to the kinds of editorial items described above from the Talk page, but if there is some way I can help, while following the Bright Line, let me know. User:King4057 14:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Parking lot I have removed the following content which has been challenged and tagged citation needed since March 2012. No sources have been provided so I am 'parking' it here. If sources are found it can be added back into the article. Another controversial McKinsey practice is its non-exclusivity policy: a conflict of interest could arise as different teams of consultants might work for direct competitors in an industry. This works to McKinsey's advantage, because it does not rule out working for potential clients. Furthermore, knowing that a competitor has hired McKinsey has historically been strong motivation for other companies to seek McKinsey's assistance themselves. The policy also means McKinsey can keep its list of clients confidential. However, because of this there is great emphasis placed on client confidentiality within the firm, and consultants are forbidden from discussing details of their work with members of other teams. While still working for McKinsey, consultants are prohibited from serving direct competitors unless they wait two or more years between the date they cease serving one competitor and begin serving the next; in some cases, consultants are forbidden from ever serving a competitor.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Healthcare Survey This is me again (changed my username). I've been working with McKinsey to come up with our best effort at a fair depiction of the healthcare survey issue (first bullet under the Criticisms header). Of course it’s difficult to neutrally cover an issue with strong opposing viewpoints with a conflict of interest, so we’d appreciate feedback from impartial editors. You can see the original side by side with the proposed here. I believe this version is much more neutral and complete than the current, but would love feedback and any bold improvements from impartial editor(s). Corporate 23:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC) yes, the original was pretty outrageous, and your rewrite very much better. I changed some of the language for clarity-- There are two very different criticisms of their " methodology" here: the details of the survey--whether the sample or the questions were biased, or that survey methodology about what people said they would do was a different & less accurate technique than modeling. It may need some further changes to make the meaning here yet clearer--the challenge is how to do it without expanding the section beyond its importance. (It's interesting that the same qy also arose over the 2012 presidential election results, where apparently modeling gave more accurate results than the surveys) DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC) My problem with these in general is that they are just too long. Is there any way to cut it down to the same number of lines or fewer than the section it replaces? My[2011] (talk) | 08:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC) I took a shot at trimming it (diff) and got it down from 500 to about 365 words, though I may have cut too deeply and welcome anyone to chime in if they feel some of that should have been kept. Corporate 17:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC) I would not trim them too much. They are well written for the most part. I'm turning off the template since it looks like the edit is done. Gigs (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC) There was some confusion here. The request is still open. Corporate 15:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Although the tone is greatly improved, the thing I like about the original version is that every sentence is about McKinsey, whereas the new proposed version contains a fair amount of info about the survey itself-- which I consider off topic. I think if we could remove the sentences that are about the survey and stick to things McKinsey actually did and things critics actually said about McKinsey, then we would have a winning draft. I could create and propose a new draft myself, in a sandbox or post it here, if that would be helpful. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks Keith. I think that is a fair assessment, though I would go both ways on it. The political context is important to an extent, because it gives the reader context on why it was controversial and the political leanings of both criticisms and praise. But there is a point where we're talking about the healthcare debate in general, instead of McKinsey specifically. I'll look forward to your draft! Corporate 01:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC) OK, here is my suggested draft which is now shorter than the original version, now in place. Of course my version is open for discussion and change as usual. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC) I made a few tweeks (diff). Mostly small editorial changes. I also felt the criticism that it differed from the CBO estimate was needed, because this was the core of why it was controversial and is what McKinsey's comment about different methodologies is targeted at. My only other comment is that it could use at least one sentence about the viewpoint of conservatives to better paint the picture of how politically charged it was and show how the anti-ACA camp was using and defending the survey. Corporate 22:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your understanding; for any further request, can I please ask that you are more specific. ie, ideally following a "replace X with Y" model. Propose specific text and citations as you would suggest it be incorporated into the article.. Feel free to post further requests for specific edits. Thanks. Shaz0t (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC) I think that this version after being tweaked by Corporate is really good and ready to go. Does anyone disagree?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Looks good to me, done. Gigs (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Lead too short tag Lead does not adequately summarize the article. It seems to paint an overly positive picture of the company, despite the lengthy "Criticisms" section. I am very unfamiliar with the company, so I thought I would tag the article to start a discussion on how to improve it. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC) History section As previously disclosed, I have a potential conflict of interest with McKinsey & Company. I authored the History section a year or two ago. But, as often happens as I get started on a new article, it started out as a single section I was dumping everything I could find sources for and I'd like to refine it a bit more. Also, the current History section is missing the challenges McKinsey faced when competitors sprouted up in the '70s which appears to be a substantial element in their history. I've put together a proposed draft that has a simpler structure, is a little more concise and better written, uses a stronger variety of sources, offers a stronger balance, etc. at: User:CorporateM/McKinsey There is some content "missing" from the proposed draft that I hope to re-introduce in other sections, but except for some of the commentary at the very bottom of the current History section, I believe it is all positive stuff that shouldn't create any COI problems. I'm not sure how to alleviate the fact that it is difficult to compare the current article to the proposed - please let me know if there is any way I can make it easier. CorporateM (Talk) 18:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Hello CorporateM. Going just by what you said above, there is a bigger challenge than just comparing two large section. You in essence said that you have take material out which you intend to leave out, and you have taken material out which you intend to put back in later. And not said which is which. So we don't know which material you are overall removing. Perhaps you could include the "readding" changes in your draft? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC) @User:North8000. To make it easier, I have produced an annotated version of the current content at User:CorporateM/McKinsey, which has bold red text explaining what content is omitted from the draft and which I intend to re-incorporate in future sections. I think as the article develops, the best structure might not be obvious and some things may get shuffled around several times as the article develops further. CorporateM (Talk) 15:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Cool, I put it in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Organization Following the format used previously for the History section, I've put together a proposed draft of a "Structure" sub-section that would be the first sub-section of the Organization section, replacing the content there currently. McKinsey's structure is very unique and it requires a bit more explanation than normal. I've put together the proposed material at User:CorporateM/McKinsey for consideration by an impartial editor, which - like before - has bold red text annotating the current version. There are also some notes there on some of the content in the current Organization section that is properly sourced content that would just be better placed somewhere else. CorporateM (Talk) 07:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC) I have put the new version into the article. As always in such cases, I have carefully reviewed the changes and read all of the talk page comments, and take full responsibility for the edit I am making under my name. Also, I have no prior connection with this subject. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Misc I'd like to suggest some heavy trims and re-structuring that should reduce the number of sections and get us more organized, while cleaning out some of the content that is cited to primary sources inappropriately, original research, or highly mis-representative of the actual sources, etc. Then I'll continue building up the article from there with more neutral content working top-down and getting to the controversies last, which I hope we can merge into the article eventually. Let me know if this is too much stuff to handle at once! completed Suggest we start a "Consulting services" section using a sentence from the prior Organization section: "McKinsey has about 9,000 consultants in 97 locations in 55 countries, working with more than 90% of the 100 leading global corporations and two-thirds of the Fortune 1000 list. Forbes estimated the firm's 2009 revenues at $6.6 billion." (This is a bit promotional by itself and outdated, but I will return to this section later on) <Insert> I agree with that. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Suggest deleting the Clients section entirely. Such sections are an indiscriminate collection of trivial/promotional information. However, I will introduce a Notable works section later on. <Insert> I agree. It seems unencyclopedic and puffery.I have removed. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Suggest we move the content in Competitors, under the new Consulting services section as it's too short for its own section which is advised against by our Manual of Style <Insert> That looks good stylistically, I will complete the move. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Suggest we delete the Asset Management section. It is entirely made up of primary sources and original research, except for one source regarding a lawsuit that it says is not yet settled and is moved for dismissal (presumably it was dismissed because I have not seen other sources regarding the outcome). <Insert> Yes, it appears to be primary sources and OR. The other was a dead link. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Suggest removing the last paragraph of the Criticisms section, as it is not actually supported by the sources (many of those sources are neutral-to-positive on McKinsey, but presented as if they are attack pieces) Suggest we move this sentence from the prior Organization section to the Galleon Scandal section: "This philosophy has come under increased scrutiny with the Galleon case, with some questioning whether the firm is a discreet broker of confidential or even inside information marketed as "best practices"." (I believe this is actually a criticism of consulting firms in general and should probably be included in a general way under Consulting services, but currently it was removed without discussion as part of the copy/paste and for now I'd like to keep it in there to avoid the appearance of my wiping out good critical content)  Not done (see discussion) Suggest removing "Despite such a policy of confidentiality, there has been criticism of incidents that have been made public." as unsourced commentary The last bullet in the Criticisms section is cited only to an op-ed. Suggest moving the Notable alumni section to List of McKinsey & Company people and offices. I will circle back with a summary, but the list article is more appropriate for such a comprehensive list The Knowledge Management System section can probably be removed. It is cited to a primary source and a WSJ source that only briefly mentions that Anil Kumar setup a McKinsey Knowledge Center in New Delhi. Let me know if there are any questions or any way I can make it easier to sort through my proposed edits. CorporateM (Talk) 16:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Here's my thoughts: If the way the organization functions is being impacted by the Galleon scandal then it needs coverage in the Organization section. The back office functionality of consulting firms is very important - contracts are won or lost based on their capability, and they are subject to huge investment - and are enabling factors in some consultancy. Not to cover this would be a major omission, I could wish for a more substantial section. The list serves little purpose here, and the move seems a good idea The schools issue should probably be removed. There is a little more coverage readily available [5] for example. If the op-ed piece was by editorial staff it would carry more weight, but it is an outside piece by an involved party. It is more relevant to the Seattle school district than to McKinsey. The "Despite...." needs cites or deletion. Cites are better. I am surprised that there is not more use of Dangerous Company, although the book is dated it is a useful source. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC). Greetings. I was asked by CorporateM to review some requested edits here. The edits listed here are a good first step, but there is still much more work that needs to be done. I agree with Rich Farmbrough regarding their public school projects, and I have removed that bullet point. The list in the "notable alumni" section should be summarized, since readers can go to the main list page for further information. Edge3 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC) @Rich @Edge3. Normally the way I work on articles is to delete any un-acceptable material before re-building, but I understand the hesitation to delete without a proper replacement. Regarding the alumni list, I was going to suggest an Influence section like this, which will also be a good section for the many controversies that surround the company's influence on government policies and corporate America. CorporateM (Talk) 14:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC) I couldn't find the "Despite..." sentence in the article, so I figured that it was already removed and ignored it. I'm also in favor of trimming the "knowledge management system" section, while adding other relevant information to give a broad overview of the company's back-office capabilities. Edge3 (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Recruiting and management section Currently the article has a recruiting section and a compensation section, which both contain a lot of original research, junk sources, off-topic information, or sources that do not actually support the article-text (some citations don't even mention McKinsey at all). As before, I have put together a document at User:CorporateM/McKinsey for review and consideration by a disinterested editor. It contains an annotated version of the current article-text, as well as the proposed version, so they can be seen side-by-side. If there is anything I can do to make it easier to review the proposed changes, let me know! CorporateM (Talk) 00:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC) FYI - I pinged a few editors to try to draw attention to this request from a few weeks ago. user:Cullen328 said he/she would look at it tonight. CorporateM (Talk) 15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC) Nice job of summarizing the problems with the current wording. I glanced at the proposed wording, then see that User:Drmies did an in-depth review, and it appears you have responded to everything. I'm obviously reluctant to implement without hearing from the good doctor. If it is as simple as life interfering, I'll take a closer look, but if he hasn't implemented because he thinks the responses are inadequate, I want to know that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC) Thanks! As a quick note for context, I pinged Drmies here a little over a week ago letting him/her know that I responded to all of their suggestions. That doesn't mean he/she found my responses satisfactory - but just that I did ping them. CorporateM (Talk) 19:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC) I implemented the changes drafted by CorporateM after reviewing them twice. Sorry for taking so long. I needed to think it over carefully. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC) More content I have put together some more first-draft content at User:CorporateM/McKinsey for consideration. This includes sections on the firm's influence, culture and reception for addition to the Organization section. It also includes a re-write of the Environmental section, which currently relies heavily on primary sources from environmental advocates like Greenpeace. The proposed is more balanced and uses proper sources. As before, it's just a first draft and I hope once a decent version of the entire article is in place, we'll be able to look at some fine-tuning, GAN-prep and figure out the best article-structure. I know the volume of content/sources is overwhelming (it's a bit overwhelming for me too). CorporateM (Talk) 17:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC) I've taken a quick look, and at first glance most of it looks appropriate for inclusion. I'll start adding content shortly. Thanks for your efforts! Edge3 (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Looks good to me. For the environmental section, I agree that the original sources were terrible, so the new text is a tremendous improvement. Good job! Edge3 (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Next round I've prepared draft Publishing, Consulting Services and Notable works sections at User:CorporateM/McKinsey. These sections would also find new homes for most (maybe all) of the content in the "Issues" section, avoiding creating a dedicated section for controversies. This is an immense body of work to review on a company with a very complex reputation. I'm sincerely appreciate of your time taking a look. My suggestion to user:Cullen328, user:Edge3, user:Guy Macon or anyone else that takes a look is that we can do them one section at-a-time if that's easier. I have no expectation of bringing the page up to GA over-night. CorporateM (Talk) 19:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I took a quick look at the Consulting Services section. Why aren't we keeping the following: "McKinsey has about 9,000 consultants in 97 locations in 55 countries,[52] working with more than 90% of the 100 leading global corporations and two-thirds of the Fortune 1000 list. Forbes estimated the firm's 2009 revenues at $6.6 billion.[53]" Edge3 (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC) I prefer to avoid redundancy with the infobox, which has parameters for number of employees, number of locations and revenue. This source looks kinda boiler-plate(ish) and I already added that they work with most big companies using a stronger (albeit outdated) source from Businessweek. It seems like a bit of chest-thumping to me to go on and on about how every big company hires them, rather than stating it just once using whichever statistic seems most appropriate (or just picking one arbitrarily); whether it's XX% of the Fortune 500, Fortune 1000, Forbes, S&P, Global 2000, etc.. We could probably provide a more up-to-date statistic than 2002 though. CorporateM (Talk) 16:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC) I've added the new content that you had proposed on your user subpage, but for now I kept the text that I mentioned above. I agree with you that we should remove it eventually, but the infobox may need some updating, since the statistics aren't cited. Would you like to update the article with a more recent statistic and provide a citation? Edge3 (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC) McKinsey & Company Company type Incorporated partnership Industry Management consulting Founded 1926 Founder James O. McKinsey Headquarters New York City, U.S. Number of locations 90 offices Area served Global Key people Dominic Barton (MD) Marvin Bower, spiritual founder Services Management consulting services Revenue $7.8 billion (2013) Number of employees 17,000 Divisions 22 Industry Practices, 8 Functional Practices and 5 Capabilities and Solutions Website www.mckinsey.com Sure, I've prepared an updated infobox here. There are a few blurry areas, like calling Kearney and Bower founders probably isn't right. Vault and Forbes disagree slightly on the number of employees as of 2013. I'm a bit iffy on what I put in for Divisions. I couldn't find a source for Assets under Management. For the chest-thumping, the most recent source I found was a Vault profile, which says "the firm does claim to serve more than 80 percent of Fortune's Most Admired Companies list, roughly 90 of the top-100 corporations worldwide and more than 80 of the 100 largest U.S.-based companies." I think using attribution (ie. according to McKinsey) like the source did would be wise. CorporateM (Talk) 17:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC) I've added the info box. For "Divisions", perhaps you can remove it from the info box and add additional detail to the article. I've added the info from the Vault profile, but I noticed that the profile's title is referring to McKinsey's Asia division. Edge3 (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks! I made some minor edits. The content from the "Divisions" parameter is already included in the body under Organization/structure, so I went ahead and took it out per your comments. The quote made it sound like it was coming from McKinsey, rather than the source, so I took it out of quotes and re-wrote it. CorporateM (Talk) 13:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Publishing A note on the proposed Publishing section - it's very long and most of the books described in it have their own articles. I think ideally we could trim it down by about a paragraph, however, I was edging on the safe side to avoid the appearance of marginalizing controversies or omitting criticisms. CorporateM (Talk) 13:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC) I added some comments on the proposed Proposed Research & Publishing section to the talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC) @user:Sphilbrick. I don't think "Knowledge Management" was the right place to put the "Publishing" section. Wikipedia defines knowledge management as "capturing, developing, sharing, and effectively using organisational knowledge.[1] It refers to a multi-disciplined approach to achieving organisational objectives by making the best use of knowledge.[2]" As an aside, I previously asked to delete the Knowledge Management section as it was unsourced. At some point someone added sources to it, but last time I checked them, none of the sources supported the article-text. It gave me the impression that some just slapped in random sources to prevent me from getting it deleted. CorporateM (Talk) 20:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC) I think that just happened because your draft had level 3 headings. I should have checked that and promoted when copying . --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Some cleanup I wanted to suggest some additional cleanup of the article, which would trim back several excessive section titles, remove unsourced or redundant content and help cleanup the page a bit. I know this can be rather tedious with my suggesting edits on the Talk page, but I'm very appreciative of everyone's help! Here are my comments regarding some proposed cleanup: Completed 1. Deleting the "Alumni" section. Its first sentence is redundant with the Organization/influence section and the second is unsourced Agree. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 2. Deleting the last paragraph of the "Recruiting and compensation" (I think user:My2011 restored this, so I'll ping him here). I've broken down why this paragraph should go in the collapsed section below Annotated version of the paragraph I suggest be deleted "As a private firm, McKinsey is not required to disclose compensation figures." This is true of all private corporations "Unlike the financial services sector, consultants are not paid proportional to the business they bring in;"There is no mention of a commission in the article, so I don't think there is a need to explain a negative "This was estimated to be $2–4 million in 1994 dollars ($3–5 million in 2009 dollars).[58]"The source does not actually say anything about McKinsey and is not reliable. "However, there are indications these numbers have increased ~40% in the subsequent 20 years.[59]" Does not appear to be supported by the quote provided in the source "For example, according to public tax records, the senior partner leading McKinsey's Norwegian office in 2011 earned 67 million NOK ($11.5 million USD).[60]" Possible privacy/BLP issue + the source seems to just link to a random news site? A 1993 Fortune profile says, "The Firm places itself above discussing money as a motivation, yet senior partners often earn as much, or more, than the CEOs they advise."[61]This sentence appears well-sourced and should be kept. Where should the last sentence be moved? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC) @User:Crisco 1492 It looks like this is actually already in the Organization/culture section, last sentence in the first paragraph: "McKinsey claims its consultants are not motivated by money.[19]" Whichever sentence is the better between the two should probably go there.CorporateM (Talk) 01:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Agree. Will remove — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC) 4. Eliminating the Awards and industry rankings section This statement: "was cited as the "most prestigious consulting firm of all" in a 2011 New York Times article"(source) is redundant with what's already in the article elsewhere: "McKinsey is considered one of the most prestigious and most expensive management consulting firms.[19][31][52]" and should be deleted I think NYT has more clout than consultant-news.com. How do you feel about moving the ref north? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)  Done I have replaced the Consulting News source with NYT higher up in the article. CorporateM (Talk) 15:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC) "Between 2002 and 2014, McKinsey has been ranked in the number one position of the "The Best Consulting Firms: Prestige" list of the Vault.com career intelligence website" appears to rely primarily on this source which is rather week, but if an editor does choose to keep it, it should go under the Recruiting and management section. It should probably be deleted though. Why remove the Vault.com source if we're citing their survey? I mean, some refs in #Consulting services points to that same survey. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC) In my opinion it's a primary source to cite a study/survey directly, rather than using a secondary source about the study (much like how we treat medical sources). However, the primary source regarding an award or ranking the source itself organizes is a secondary source regarding events it is not directly affiliated with (see WP:ORGAWARDS). However, if you think it is best to keep it, we can just merge it with the rest of the content about prestige. There are bountiful sources discussing McKinsey's prestigious reputation. CorporateM (Talk) 15:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Personally, when I edit, if I have an overview article I tend to prefer that over citing ten different news articles, assuming the information is the same. It keeps things simpler. Here we have a survey which we know is pertinent to the company's standing (owing to coverage in RSes), and Vault.com is an RS for what Vault.com thinks - including the survey. Yes, it's not independent, but it's certainly acceptable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC) I trust your judgement. CorporateM (Talk) 16:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Thanks so much for your time and assistance! CorporateM (Talk) 23:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC) 3. Re-distributing the "Knowledge Management" section Suggest "Anil Kumar launched the McKinsey Knowledge Center in 1998[62]" be moved to "History" to replace the first couple sentences. Suggest "By 2009, the firm consisted of 400 directors (senior partners), up from 151 in 1993,[19][63] and Dominic Barton was elected as Managing Director, a role he was re-elected for in 2012.[63]" be moved to "History" Suggest something like "The Knowledge Management Center at McKinsey system includes generalist researchers, industry-experts, librarians and function-specific experts and includes access to journals and databases. McKinsey maintains an organisation called the McKinsey Knowledge Centre (McKC) to provide rapid access to specialized expertise and business information.[64]" be moved to the end of Organization/Structure section I don't know, this section looks fairly useful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)