1.For the first page: Reply to my classmates response for my post
the pic i upload below is what I post
the post is according to https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/business/self-help-at-mckinsey.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A7%22%7D&_r=0
First response to my post:
A very detailed account of the article, glad to have read it. By your post, it is notable that you are well informed about this topic. Here is my question to you, do you think to regain customer’s trust a company has to disrupt its culture, or is it possible to create change without upsetting anyone? As we can see by the case, the European branch was not happy with any of the changes and I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
Second response to my post:
I found your post to be really intriguing and agree with the strategies that you have provided, I also believe to regain customer trust, They should have updated their code of ethics/conduct and should have communicated their efforts to establish alignment with the same to their customers.This should been followed by robust communication with the customers to inform them regarding the steps taken by the company to resolve the issue internally and its future efforts to make its services even more client driven and oriented.It could have also asked for a feedback on how/what changes the customers would like to see.
I look forward to discussing this with you further.
Third response for my post:
Thank you for your comment. My question is an extension of Junayed’s. It is a question for everyone actually.
Do you think that the disruption of Company culture is always a bad thing? Should Companies often disrupt culture to improve and be relevant?
I think that Companies cannot afford to be tone-deaf to the current social situation. For example, a Company has to upgrade its culture to be more sensitive to issues like “Me-too” and others. I believe that in today’s day and age, a Company has to either keep up or fall behind.
“Change is the only unchanging facet of this changing universe”. Do you agree? Let me know!
2. For the second page:
Response my two classmate’s post
First classmate’s post:
McKinsey, the Company in question had a culture based on values and trust. Despite being a well-crafted model nurtured by the then Managing Director Marvin Bower, it was not enough to prevent the unforeseen scandals that are now plaguing the Company. After the then Director, Anil Kumar and former Managing Director, Rajat K. Gupta was consecutively charged with impropriety, the Company name was dragged through the mud. Mr Kumar was accused of insider trading, and Mr Gupta was charged for leaking boardroom business. The fact that top management executives were accused of such misconduct, reflected even more poorly on the Company. The subordinates and other new employees were skeptical of Company operations.
Dominic Barton, the current Managing Director made it his mission to restore the name of the Company and establish a culture that would prevent such future scandals. He established rules that would drive the honor and value-based system. This enforcement of rules was not welcome, especially in the European counterparts of the Company. They accused Mr Barton of establishing a stringent nanny state where rules guide ethics and not trust. The partners became so discontent that they demanded proof of the new set of rules working and deterring bad behavior. This posed Mr Barton with two challenges as opposed to one. First, he would have to improve Company culture and second, he had to convince partners to accept his rules and modifications.
I think Mr Barton handled the situation rather remarkably. He introduced a new personal investment policy that would stop employees and their families from trading securities of the firms clients. This policy might be one that goes against the principle of trust when it comes to partners and employees. But since the previous culture of overt trust resulted in its misuse, I think this was a much-needed change within the Company culture. He also introduced Survey of Inspirational Leadership where subordinates could express their views about senior partners while maintaining full confidentiality. Despite its demerits, it actually proved to be fruitful. I think this keeps the Company culture in check, especially the behavior of the executives. This new introduction stirred uneasiness among partners but that did not stop Mr Barton from going ahead with his vision for the Company.
In my opinion, a Company with a negative reputation requires strict corrective action to get back up on its feet. The previous model of operation had failed the Company, so it required strong decisive steps to ensure accountability and transparency. I think the public hanging is a harsh measure for any Company but in this case, it was a necessity to avoid public scandals in the future. The steps taken by the Managing Director shows his sound leadership skills as he did not hesitate to take strong steps even at the displeasure of some partners. A crisis can be viewed as a danger or an opportunity. In this case, it was a dangerous opportunity. This is because Mr Barton did not have his partners’ full support and his measures could have backfired. But he still made the risky move and in my opinion, it was the right one.
Second classmate’s post:
Mr. Barton was trying to avoid another scandal regarding McKinsey Consulting. Some of the company’s C-suite members convicted of breaking trading laws, mainly insider trading which is highly illegal in the United States. As Mr.Barton has been part of the company for so long and was the Global Managing Director, It was difficult for him to make changes to the company culture he was part of for so many years. The company culture was based on trust and values, values of the clients above the company. This was bestowed on the company by Mr.Bower to ensure confidence in the company by its clients but the first scandal showed it needed some changes.
First, Mr. Barton introduced a new policy that prohibited employees and their household members to trade in securities to ensure no one has the incentive to commit similar crimes and also made sure all employees, regardless of rank, take an online training course about investing. As McKinsey is a global company, not everyone liked the new policies, especially the European branch as the policies were the aftermath of a violation of American Securities Law.
Second, Mr. Barton introduced a feedback loop for the leadership which was confidential, it allowed employees to report their superior without fearing backlash or repercussions. This was innovative as it was uncommon for a consulting firm to have a confidential survey system about their leadership. Again, it was an issue for the European branch as the executives believed that it infringed a company principle which was dissent is always welcomed and on record.
I believe the actions Mr. Barton took were very appropriate and which addressed a few of the issues the company was facing. As we studied in books and in life, building one’s reputation takes time, and destroying it takes seconds. Mr. Barton’s aim was to restore the public faith in the company and address the scandals head-on. Here we can observe that transparency played a big role, Mr. Barton took a few steps that made the company’s decisions very public, this lead to some public apologies by senior management. Although it was a temporary setback, this boosted McKensey’s image in the public eye and made employees aware of the changes. The creation of the feedback loop on the leadership was the biggest effective change as it was a way to keep the executives in check, the new approach allowed the company employees to share their thoughts about their leaders. This was done because the scandals were around high executives and it gave the employees a chance to share their opinions in a multinational company.
These changes were necessary for the betterment of the company culture and to restore public faith in the leadership. It was also beneficial as it boosts company morale and increases collaboration between employees. It was a positive change but every change has obstacles and challenges.
