<\/p>\n
ADI IGNATIUS: I\u2019m Adi Ignatius.<\/p>\n
ALISON BEARD: I\u2019m Alison Beard and this is the HBR IdeaCast.<\/em><\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: All right, Alison, this question\u2019s going to seem random, but I promise you it\u2019s not, what was your major in college?<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: I was a double major in journalism and politics at Washington and Lee University.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: Okay. I was history at Haverford, another liberal arts college. If you\u2019re like me, you probably figured that your majors equipped you well for something like journalism, but maybe not so well for something like management consulting, which is tended to recruit people who studied economics or engineering or business.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yeah, I always thought of consulting and finance as the place where all the most ambitious, highest achievers, most capitalistic students wanted to go and those firms definitely focused on the Ivy League and the big universities.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: The world is changing. We know that AI is remaking everything including the world of management and my guest today, McKinsey\u2019s global managing partner, has a lot to say about how it is rethinking its business in this era.<\/p>\n So McKinsey already views its first AI agents as very much part of its workforce and is rapidly expanding that part of its team, but while AI is really good at linear problem solving, it\u2019s not so good at out-of-the-box thinking, which means McKinsey is rethinking its talent needs. I\u2019m not going to spoil it, but your journalism politics double major might line up well with what the consulting giant is increasingly looking for. So here\u2019s my interview with Bob Sternfels, global managing partner at McKinsey, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year.<\/p>\n So I want to start, McKinsey is turning, maybe has turned 100. HBR, by the way, we\u2019re 103, so welcome to the Century Club. How would you summarize the company\u2019s 100-year legacy? To what extent has McKinsey created the ideas that have shaped the business world or to what extent is it about identifying and suggesting best practices that come from elsewhere?<\/p>\n BOB STERNFELS: I guess I would start with the nature of how we do our work. And the idea is, look, we co-create with our clients and when we\u2019re at our best, it is figuring out how do we help clients get to places they can\u2019t get to themselves. The whole notion in some ways of credit of, \u201cDid you create something novel or did you have best practice?\u201d maybe the way we frame is we\u2019re co-creating with clients to help them come up with things that they may not have come up with themselves or we might not have come up with themselves.<\/p>\n And we clearly invest a boatload in proprietary IP. We invest over a billion dollars a year in innovation, new thought, new ideas. Our McKinsey Global Institute, for example, which is a bit of our independent research tank, but we\u2019ve now created McKinsey Health Institute, I think if you do look at their history, a lot of that is novel thinking, the most recent looking at a global balance sheet and saying, \u201cHow\u2019s the world when you look at assets and liabilities?\u201d That\u2019s not a best practice, that\u2019s new thought. But equally, part of the reason we stay global as an operating model is, then at the more micro levels, the clients that we serve don\u2019t want to understand what the leading edge innovation is in their particular country.<\/p>\n They want to understand innovation around the world and perhaps even cross sector. And that is part of our model. So I\u2019d probably say, if I had to guess, it\u2019s probably half-half on this around where are there truly novel co-creation and where is this idea of figuring out, \u201cHow do you bring innovation around the world to clients who may not have access to that innovation based on the reality that they\u2019re in?\u201d<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: So one area of innovation obviously is AI and I\u2019m sure you\u2019re advising companies all the time on how to adapt to an AI-driven world. I want to talk about that, but I\u2019m interested in the internal discussions that are happening at McKinsey about this. To what extent is AI shifting the economics of your industry, headcount, pricing, productivity? Are margins improving? Are they under stress? What are the internal conversations about AI for your business?<\/p>\n BOB STERNFELS: AI, we haven\u2019t talked about that at all. No, I\u2019m just kidding.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: You should. It\u2019s really cool.<\/p>\n BOB STERNFELS: It\u2019s hard to have a conversation in any context right now that doesn\u2019t link back to some form of AI. I think this question around AI and how it impacts McKinsey, there\u2019s two sides of that coin. There\u2019s a client-facing side and then there\u2019s, \u201cWhat are the implications on McKinsey?\u201d<\/p>\n There\u2019s a unique moment to help all of our clients reimagine themselves leveraging this technology. And to be able to do that, we have to rewire ourselves to be able to deliver that. I may audio just start with a bit of what I\u2019m actually hearing from clients around the world, across all industries and across all geographies and I really hear in the truth room maybe two things. On the one hand, an enormous belief in the potential for this wave of technological change and that\u2019s everything from enormous productivity gains in areas like customer care or back-office processes, but also to growth things. If you think about radically shortening the time of drug discovery and what that actually means for longevity and life and that\u2019s top line growth.<\/p>\n So folks are excited and they\u2019re believers, but at the same time, from the conversations that I have with CEOs, they\u2019ll often say, \u201cHey, Bob, so do I listen to my CFO or my CIO right now?\u00a0 My CFO is in my ear that we\u2019re spending a lot of money on technology, but we\u2019re not yet seeing enterprise-level value from this. And so do we really need to be at the cutting edge or why can\u2019t we be a fast follower, let other folks figure out where this is and then we\u2019ll adopt quickly because it\u2019s a lot more efficient to be a follower than a leader? CIO is saying, \u2018Are you crazy? This is one of those moments. And if we\u2019re not in the lead, we\u2019re going to get disrupted.’\u201d<\/p>\n We\u2019ve spent a lot of time looking at at least what we think the answer is here and I know we spent a lot of time talking about technology, but what we\u2019re finding is half if not more of the secret sauce is organizational change as opposed to technology implementation. This is for large enterprise. And it\u2019s things like, \u201cWell, what does your work look like after you\u2019re implementing these? Could you have, for example, a much flatter organization that cuts out a lot of middle layers and makes your organization faster?\u201d<\/p>\n When you think about really complicated workflows, think about a mortgage process, you got all these steps, origination, credit scoring, collection, after service, et cetera. Those are all departments in a bank. Well, why do you have four or five departments in a process if you can really enable this through AI? Can\u2019t you break those walls down? And so we\u2019re spending a lot of time thinking through not only what\u2019s the strategy and how do you implement, but how do you change the organization? How do you rewire the organization to realize the value?<\/p>\n And if you can get that right, all of a sudden, the CFO and the CIO are actually on the same page, but we\u2019re finding that\u2019s harder and it\u2019s taking longer than people thought. And so I do think we\u2019re going to be in this period where really enterprise fundamentally changing themselves, yes, enormous potential, it\u2019s going to take a little while to get there. \\<\/p>\n So then you say, \u201cOkay, what does that mean for McKinsey?\u201d We\u2019re applying this to ourselves. I often get asked, \u201cHow big is McKinsey? How many people do you employ?\u201d I now update this almost every month, but my latest answer to you would be 60,000, but it\u2019s 40,000 humans and 20,000 agents.<\/p>\n Little over a year and a half ago, that was 3,000 agents and I originally thought it was going to take us to 2030 to get to one agent per human. I think we\u2019re going to be there in 18 months and we\u2019ll have every employee enabled by at least one or more agents. That\u2019s one piece of what are the assets and technologies that we\u2019re building in ourselves.<\/p>\n The other big piece is how does it change our model. We\u2019re coming around to the conviction that we\u2019re migrating pretty quickly away from, let\u2019s call it pure advisory work, which was a lot of the origins of our firm and a fee-for-service model, et cetera. And what\u2019s it moving to? It\u2019s moving to much more of an outcomes-based model where we say, \u201cLook, let\u2019s identify a joint business case together and we will underwrite the outcomes of that business case.\u201d And it aligns our interests with our clients a lot more and I think will be the way of the future.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: Yeah. Now, AI is going to get better, right? We\u2019re still in the-<\/p>\n BOB STERNFELS: It is, yeah.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: \u2026 early phases of generative AI. If technology can continue to commoditize even the kinds of analysis and insight that a McKinsey has long provided, what will clients actually be paying for when they could probably do a lot of that themselves?<\/p>\n BOB STERNFELS: The kind of problems that we have tackled with our clients over a hundred years has not been static. It has changed radically. I\u2019m now considered a dinosaur in our firm because I\u2019m a little over 30 years with us, but the stuff that I did when I joined as an associate 32 years ago, we wouldn\u2019t consider even doing right now. Why? Because clients do that stuff themselves and we are solving much more complicated interconnected questions with our clients.<\/p>\n And I think what this is going to then mean is this is just going to be that next evolution of there\u2019ll be a whole bunch of things that a couple years ago we did for our clients that our clients will do for themselves and the imperative will then be to move to the even more complicated questions. And to your point, what are clients going to pay us for? They\u2019re going to pay us to find ways to double their market cap. And until we get to CEOs who say, \u201cI don\u2019t want to double my market cap,\u201d I think there\u2019ll always be a more complicated set of questions and opportunities out there.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: What is the evolving skills profile then of a management consultant? Do you even know yet? What are you looking for in new hires and that must be evolving pretty quickly?<\/p>\n BOB STERNFELS: This is a really fascinating question. It\u2019s a passion of mine. I might frame it in, \u201cWhat are some things we\u2019re confident about now and then what are some things we\u2019re exploring?\u201d When I came into this role, and it was a little over four years ago, I asked our talent attraction team, \u201cHow are we doing on attracting talent?\u201d and I got a, \u201cWe\u2019re doing great, Bob. We\u2019re doing great.\u201d I said, \u201cWell, why?\u201d They said, \u201cWell, we get over a million applications a year and we hire anywhere between eight and 10,000 people. And even the million aren\u2019t a normal distribution. They\u2019re some of the brightest minds in the world that are applying. So effectively, what\u2019s the problem? Why are you asking me? Let me go back and do my job.\u201d<\/p>\n And I kept asking the question, \u201cBut, well, how many profiles are we really looking for? What are we systematically screening out?\u201d and it turned out that really, when you boiled it down worldwide, there\u2019s only 500 pathways that would lead you to McKinsey. And that wasn\u2019t tying with what our own organizational research was saying, that the half-life on skills was getting shorter, that people were too focused on paper ceiling because you have the right credentials. And so we actually applied analytics on ourselves and took the last 20 years of data and said, \u201cWhat are the skills and characteristics that are most likely to make partner in McKinsey?\u201d because it\u2019s not perfect, but it\u2019s a marker of success. Only one in six hires make partner.<\/p>\n And it turned out we had some bias in our system. We had 50 different implications, but I\u2019ll give you the biggest three. One was that we were too focused on, \u201cDid you have perfect marks?\u201d versus, \u201cDid you have a setback and recover?\u201d And the applicant who had a setback and recovered was more resilient and more likely to be a higher probability of making partner in McKinsey and we weren\u2019t screening for that. So we\u2019ve changed the process to look for resilience in the application process.<\/p>\n And it may sound shocking, but we weren\u2019t indexing enough on, \u201cHad you had real experience in a significant way working with others?\u201d Fundamentally, we\u2019re about helping our clients change. And if you\u2019d done a team sport or if you\u2019ve worked in retail, working your way through college, you\u2019ve had to engage with others. And it\u2019s built a skill, human-to-human skill, that we\u2019re now indexing a lot more on. And then the last one was, \u201cDid you have the aptitude to learn new stuff?\u201d versus, \u201cHad you mastered the subject that you chose to study?\u201d My youngest guy used this one against me actually when he was changing his major for the third time and I was a little frustrated with him and he\u2019s like, \u201cBut dad, you published a paper that said if you have the aptitude to learn new stuff,\u201d and I\u2019m like, \u201cYeah, but you have to do well in the subject that you go to.\u201d<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: This kid\u2019s smart.<\/p>\n BOB STERNFELS: Yeah. Well-<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: Send his resume to me.<\/p>\n BOB STERNFELS: It\u2019s the only time he quoted me, Adi, and I was like, \u201cReally?\u201d But it did get us to then change our assessment techniques where we purposely create an environment where no human in the world will have any pattern recognition in this environment and we figure out, \u201cHow well do you do in an environment where you have no pattern recognition and you just have to go figure things out?\u201d So those are some of the skills now we know we\u2019re moving to. We\u2019ve launched more of an exploratory look now going forward where you say, \u201cOkay, but if everyone gets super humid with these AI tools, what do you want to add on top of this resilience, teamwork, ability to learn new stuff?\u201d<\/p>\n That part I just told you I feel pretty solid about. This part I\u2019m going to tell you is places we\u2019re more in exploration mode. One of them is, \u201cWell, what do the models not do well?\u201d They don\u2019t aspire. They\u2019re not good at setting the right aspiration level. When you think about what great leaders do, they help an organization set the right ask, \u201cWhat should we aspire to?\u201d And so how do we start to look for and develop the skills of leadership? Leadership is going to be durable in a post-AI world because one of the great things leaders do is they help set an aspiration and get people to stretch.<\/p>\n The second is judgment. And you\u2019ve seen time and time again, these models, there\u2019s not truth in the model, there\u2019s not judgment in the model. Humans need to impose those parameters. So how do you build judgment and how do you build that capability?<\/p>\n And then maybe the last one we\u2019re spending a lot of time on is the models are inference models. They\u2019re great at a linear approach to problem solving, which is what we\u2019ve been teaching for the last hundred years. What they\u2019re not great as discontinuous leaps, truly novel thinking. And so we\u2019re starting to figure out, \u201cWhere are backgrounds that are going to be more creative to come up with things that aren\u2019t about the next logical step, but are about a discontinuity?\u201d<\/p>\n And so we\u2019re going back to liberal arts degrees and saying, \u201cHey, let\u2019s come back to some of the things that might have been deprioritized in the past to see if we can get a little bit more creativity.\u201d<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: Yeah. We had a piece from the chief technology officer of Goldman Sachs who had wanted his child to be a coder and then thought, \u201cNope, I think she should be a philosophy major, that that\u2019s what this world calls for.\u201d<\/p>\n BOB STERNFELS: Maybe, right?<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: We\u2019ve looked back, we\u2019ve looked forward. You\u2019ve talked about some of the celebratory stuff that\u2019s going on. I need to ask though, you\u2019ve also had your share of unwelcome publicity in recent years and I\u2019m talking about OxyContin, bribery charges in South Africa, conflict of interest, accusations in the U.S. and elsewhere. How do you account for all of that? How do you look at what happened and why?<\/p>\n BOB STERNFELS: Well, I\u2019m glad you asked and this has been \u2026 I think it\u2019s been a real soul-searching for us starting about four or five years ago of really two questions, Adi. On the one hand, where should we be more humble and learn from our mistakes? And at the same time, where should we be more courageous and just say, \u201cLook, we disagree with you. And even though we\u2019ll face criticism, we\u2019re going to push back because that\u2019s what we believe in\u201d? And let me parse each of those. Some of the ones that you mentioned fall clearly in the humble camp and I think some of the great learnings that we had, if I just take two in particular, opioids, the work with opioids and our partnerships in South Africa.<\/p>\n What we learned is that we have to have a higher diligence around client selection. And we put in place a framework that is a really robust assessment now that looks across every aspect from the country, the topic, the institution, the individuals and the operating environment to say, \u201cIs this a client that we actually want to bring in to the firm?\u201d And so one of the languages that I\u2019ve used with our partners, and it\u2019s hard to drive change in a partnership is, \u201cYou all grew up with the idea that one of the privileges of a partner is to commit the firm. And I\u2019m not saying that\u2019s not the case anymore, but you don\u2019t do it alone. You do it with risk professionals.\u201d<\/p>\n And we invested about a billion dollars. I brought in the head of internal audit from Apple, the head of compliance from Walmart, to basically modernize us around these processes. And it\u2019s why I also said, \u201cLook, we apologize. We got those wrong, but we don\u2019t want to set out just to remediate the problem. We want to set out to try and set the standard for professionalism for our industry.\u201d So I think that is an important lesson of, \u201cHow do you learn from your mistakes?\u201d stay humble, but not seek to just repair them, but seek to actually make yourself better and we\u2019ve had a lot of learnings around that.<\/p>\n McKinsey has learned a ton from this and we\u2019re setting out to make ourselves better. And one of the things that I\u2019ve tried to open myself up to, both to regulators and to clients is, \u201cLook, these are the new protocols we put in place. Do you have any ideas on how we can make them better?\u201d Because even what we\u2019ve put in place, I\u2019m not sure we\u2019re ever going to be done on this front. So I just wanted to close the loop on that. I\u2019m obsessed with, \u201cWe got to be a journey to try and aspire to set the standard for professionalism.\u201d The lifeblood of what we do and it\u2019s why so many great talent from around the world come is the kind of impact that they can have with clients.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: From the outside, it looked like McKinsey was committed to growing as quickly as possible in markets all over the world by design, relatively little centralized oversight. And again, from the outside, that sounds like a recipe for trouble. Is that a fair analysis?<\/p>\n BOB STERNFELS: No, not really. It\u2019s easy to say that, Adi, from the outside, but the truth of the matter is you have three or four forces that are going on here. On the one hand, there\u2019s an increasing scrutiny on the side of media, governments for all institutions. And so one of the things that we learned through this process is there are some things that we\u2019re going to be criticized for that we\u2019re just going to push back on. We got heavily criticized for our work in hard-to-abate sectors on their transition issues. And it was, \u201cMcKinsey\u2019s accelerating climate degradation, et cetera.\u201d<\/p>\n And we pushed back and said, \u201cNo, look, if you\u2019re going to be committed to climate transition, you have to work with the hardest-to-abate sectors. It\u2019s just naive to say that you\u2019re going to solve this problem without that.\u201d So there\u2019s a portion of this that was rooted in just more transparency, more criticism and I\u2019m trying to build a bit of thicker skin. There\u2019s a portion which was an evolution in our organization model that said, \u201cLook, as we do get bigger and as the world gets more complicated and more requirements are thrown in, we do need tighter compliance standards. This is where the idea that we should have the same compliance and accountability standards as a publicly traded company, even though we\u2019re not publicly traded,\u201d was I think one of the greatest changes that we\u2019ve been through in the last six years.<\/p>\n And growth has never been our objective function. We\u2019re privately traded. We don\u2019t have quarterly earnings. You don\u2019t see McKinsey talking about, \u201cOh, we had revenue growth of this or that,\u201d because the ethos internally is that we\u2019re a profession, not a business, meaning that we want to put our clients\u2019 interests ahead of ourselves and the objective should be, \u201cAre we doing distinctive work versus any kind of work?\u201d But without the right controls, you can\u2019t guarantee that. And so one of the things I think we learned is, even though we had that as our ethos and the objective function was never grow at all costs, if you don\u2019t put in place compliance, you\u2019re not going to actually be able to enforce those standards.<\/p>\n It\u2019s painful for a partnership to give up some of that autonomy, but I think it\u2019s one that we now have pretty \u2026 I mean, look, you never get 100% uniformity in a partnership, but I think there\u2019s pretty good agreement that these things have made us better and it\u2019s worth giving up that autonomy to actually preserve the integrity of the enterprise.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: People would say consultants prescribe frameworks, but don\u2019t have to live with the consequences. How do you ensure that McKinsey\u2019s advice is more than a PowerPoint strategy, that it creates real, lasting, long-term impact?<\/p>\n BOB STERNFELS: I hope we get out of PowerPoint entirely at some day and I tell you that would love to Microsoft, but it isn\u2019t about providing a unique insight. It goes back to this notion of what we really aspire to be is to be impact partners with our clients. We\u2019re on a change journey of moving, quite frankly, from a model that was advisory to one that underwrites outcomes. And today, Adi, about a third of our revenues total are underwriting outcomes. So it\u2019s not, \u201cHey, you handed me a PowerPoint. Great.\u201d It\u2019s, \u201cWe collectively signed up for this outcome together and we\u2019re tied on this journey all the way through until that impact is delivered.\u201d My hope is that that crosses a majority of the revenues by the time I\u2019m done being the global managing partner.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: We\u2019ve been around a hundred years, you\u2019ve been around a hundred years. We\u2019re all presenting important ideas, there are others as well, and yet this is hard, right? Running a business is hard. Nobody really has cracked the code forever. Where do you think leaders most consistently get things wrong?<\/p>\n BOB STERNFELS: I think there is some mix of a couple things that are, at least in my mind, increasingly important. One is this hunger and thirst to acquire new information. And whenever you get too confident, too overconfident, I think change for the negative is going to come. And so how do you have this almost ruthless quest for, \u201cLet me continue to question new things,\u201d and maybe also from all levels in the organization, often the best ideas are embedded somewhere lowered out.<\/p>\n The second and, Adi, you linked it when you talked about both of our organizations is, \u201cHow much do you do this yourself versus do you think about partnerships?\u201d And I think, increasingly, we\u2019re seeing, when people collaborate across the value chain, et cetera, you find disproportionate gain, and yet, our organizations aren\u2019t geared to collaborate well, right? We\u2019re just not. And so thirst for new, \u201cFocus on collaboration.\u201d And then finally, I would say, and maybe this is a sign of the times, maybe not, speed matters. One of the things that we\u2019ve studied to death is faster organizations outperform slower organizations even if they make more mistakes. And yet, we\u2019re not wired to do that. There\u2019s such risk aversion in large enterprise. If we could lean in a bit more to that, I think great things happen.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: In the issue of management, what seems to be fundamentally different today versus how companies have to adapt to jolts in geopolitics or with technology? What are you seeing in terms of new management paradigms that are taking shape today?<\/p>\n BOB STERNFELS: I look at it from the lens of the discussions that I have, which is, \u201cWhat are CEOs focused on? What are some big topics right now that are occupying the minds of senior management teams and their discussions both amongst themselves and with boards?\u201d and as you can imagine, that varies based on where you sit in the world. But there are some themes to your question, Adi, that seem to be transversal. I\u2019d be lying if one of the themes wasn\u2019t one of the ones that we talked about, which is, \u201cHow do I get value from this technology and what is everyone else doing because this is hard?\u201d And so I would put that as one of the themes of, \u201cHow do I transform my enterprise through this revolution in technology that we\u2019re seeing right before our eyes?\u201d It is a big theme.<\/p>\n The second big theme is, \u201cHow do I build more institutional resilience because I\u2019m increasingly \u2026\u201d I\u2019m talking now in the guise of a CEO of the mind, \u201cthat unfortunately things will never go back to how they were? There\u2019s going to be a world of continuous shocks. And so in a world of continuous shocks, do I have enough institutional resilience in my organization?\u201d And when you burrow under that, what folks often say is, I like sports, I\u2019ll give you a sports analogy, \u201cI need to play offense and defense at the same time. So I need defense that I need enough buffer, enough cushion to be able to withstand something that I don\u2019t see coming and have I built that margin into my system to be able to take the next blow that I may not see coming?<\/p>\n But I also can\u2019t just play defense. I need some capacity to take some bold bets even when I may be getting hit with exogenous shocks. So can I play offense and defense at the same time as my simple version of \u2018How do you build institutional resilience?’\u201d<\/p>\n And then maybe the last one, if I were to just give you three, I haven\u2019t met a CEO yet that thinks that their organization model is perfect. Haven\u2019t met one. And a lot of the seminal thinking actually comes from some stuff \u2013 a 1959 paper in HBR by Gil Clee. This was before he became a GMP. He was one of my predecessors, but it was about creating a global organization and it was the precursor thinking to the matrixed organization.<\/p>\n And if you look at almost every large enterprise today, there is some version of a matrixed organization and I hear different tension points from CEOs about why their org is one of the bottlenecks in getting done what they need to get done, \u201cIt\u2019s too slow. It\u2019s too cumbersome. I can\u2019t resource, reallocate. It doesn\u2019t help me with complicated geography decisions.\u201d Whatever it may be, Adi, I hear a lot of questions about, \u201cWhat should my future organization model be?\u201d<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: So in 10 years\u2019 time, what would you like McKinsey to be known for that it is not known for today?<\/p>\n BOB STERNFELS: I think it\u2019s got to be a mix of, \u201cWhat do I hope we\u2019re still known for and then what might be some new things?\u201d because it\u2019s not going to be just stuff that McKinsey isn\u2019t known for today. I hope the part that it\u2019s continued to be known for is leadership factory of the world. And one of the things that\u2019s been very exciting is, no matter how long folks stay with us, they tend to do pretty well wherever they go. We produce more CEOs than any other institution in the world and I hope that\u2019s still the case in 10 years. \u201cAre folks coming to us and \u2026\u201d Sorry, this is just my direct language, maybe the experience isn\u2019t easy, maybe it\u2019s pretty hard and they get a lot of tough feedback, but, \u201cDo we make you a better leader no matter how long you\u2019re in McKinsey? Two years, 30 years, but do you leave McKinsey a better \u2026\u201d I hope that remains.<\/p>\n I hope the part that is new, to your point, is something that\u2019s in flight today, but I think not really well known, which is we complete this journey from being an advisor to an impact partner and that McKinsey is not known for, \u201cHey, they gave me great advice, but if it worked, that was because they were smart, and if it didn\u2019t work, it\u2019s because I didn\u2019t implement,\u201d which is the joke, right? But as it moved to, \u201cYou know what? We designed a business case together and these guys underwrote the same outcomes that I took to the board and we went on this journey and we kept at it until we got to someplace I didn\u2019t think I could get to.\u201d I think that\u2019s the part that I\u2019d love to land fully in this next decade.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: Bob, thank you very much for being here. That was a great discussion and congratulations on turning 100.<\/p>\n BOB STERNFELS: Thank you. I enjoyed it. It\u2019s great to see you.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: That was Bob Sternfels, global managing partner at McKinsey & Company. Next week, Alison looks into the latest research on what it takes to really be ready for the C-suite.<\/p>\n If you found this episode helpful, share it with a colleague and be sure to subscribe and rate IdeaCast<\/em> in Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen. If you want to help leaders move the world forward, please consider subscribing to Harvard Business Review. You\u2019ll get access to the HBR mobile app, the weekly exclusive insider newsletter and unlimited access to HBR online. Just head to hbr.org\/subscribe.<\/p>\n And thanks to our team, senior producer, Mary Dooe, audio product manager, Ian Fox, and senior production specialist, Rob Eckhardt. And thanks to you for listening to the HBR IdeaCast.<\/em> We\u2019ll be back with a new episode on Tuesday. I\u2019m Adi Ignatius.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n #McKinseyand #ConsultingGo<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" ADI IGNATIUS: I\u2019m Adi Ignatius. ALISON BEARD: I\u2019m Alison Beard and this is the HBR IdeaCast. ADI IGNATIUS: All right, Alison, this question\u2019s going to seem random, but I promise you it\u2019s not, what was your major in college? ALISON BEARD: I was a double major in journalism and politics at Washington and Lee University. […]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3277,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5240","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-management"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n