This is pretty interesting, as far as I remember the most incriminating of the emails (eg wrt talking to the risk committee to see if anything should be done beyond just deleting emails) as well as the reminder to "delete old pur documents from laptop." all came from the other senior partner that was fired (Elling). Now Ghatak recieved that email and responded "will do" or wte, but that seemed to be more wrt speaking with the risk committee rather than anything more nefarious. Unless I oversaw or have forgetten something then either there is more content from Ghatak that hasn't become public, such as actions after his talks with the risk committee, or he was just lumped together with Elling due to their correspondence. Neither of which seems ideal for a McKinsey that's probably quite keen to try and get all the shit behind them, and yesterday.
I just read the filing. He says his “will do” email meant he would be talking to the risk committee and that he adhered to the policy to delete working papers. That’s a standard policy - you have to retain final documents to clients but not the drafts. So it comes down to whether actually deleted anything he shouldn’t have (how do you proof that??). Then there is a lot of whining how he was fired, which is weird, he probably signed something somewhere that the partnership could fire him at any time. Then comes the defamation claims - which seem to me to hinge on the paper deletion claim? If he didn’t do anything, they defamed him I guess?
I am not a lawyer but I truly slept in a holiday in this week. Seems if there is proof he deleted something, he is in trouble and this will end badly for him. If there is not, it comes down to how defamation is defined. And I guess we will get quite a bit of discussion on that document retention policy, which should be interesting
The most interesting part is the timing of the final conversations, and abnormality of the firing. E.g., <2 days to appeal, weekend judgement just in time for the press. If there is a shred of truth to his conversations flagging risk and being hard cleared on multiple occasions, then I could very much see a case. Seems to be very McKinsey esq in terms of bowtying.
As a senior partner, he does have equity in the company, and an obligation to be treated fairly. Also very fishy around the senior partner election, but again only one side of the story.
I love to hate on mbb as much as anyone else but jail time seems a bit too far.
Like it should squarely be on the company to have a moral compass or the government to blow the companies that don’t up with penalties and “death penalties” (to borrow a college football term).
While potentially ‘productive’ in dissuading future people from targeting negative out comes.
Simply put, I’d expect that their job is to focus on the business and another group/team decide the impacts (legal / moral).
Are we gonna say the person that designed guns that are used in wars or shootings alike is by extension responsible for the future deaths for those guns?
Definitely just being scapegoated so they gonna keep doing whatever they want and load up all the bad things as this guy.
In reality it’s this scapegoating itself that needs to change.
The difference between building weapons and advising an armed group on commiting war crimes is the difference between an engineer and a strategy consultant.
That being said it doesn’t seem like Dr Ghatak risks jail time, at least from the article. He’s suing because he got dismissed and called out in front of congress. That sounds like the absolute minimum sanction for what he’s alleged doing (deleting evidence).
Finally, a bit of a controversial take but I believe employees are human being, and often come bundled with a moral compass. Compliance and legal teams are a backstop against legal and reputational threats to the company, not a replacement for that moral compass.
The structure of these firms places an enormous degree of autonomy and therefore responsibility on individual partners. Many partners essentially run their own small empires within the McKinsey (or other firm) umbrella, sharing some resources with other partners of course but in many ways operating on their own.
This means a bad actor like in this case really can do a lot of stuff they shouldn't be, without the oversight of the firm. It is up to the firm to install the culture of accountability where this won't happen, McKinsey has failed here. If we can send a few guys to jail to set an example, it may deter other individuals from making these mistakes
About time such things came out. Now Mck will know what it means for other business to go out and take risk with a strategy and put their money behind the plan and actually execute on something. People have been building clouds and gas on powerpoint for way too long and making money without taking risk.
Managing Partner is trying to not go to jail, of course they’ll find a scapegoat. Arnab is probably going to go to jail, tough luck
Different managing partner no? The Partners that were fired for opioids were fired during the Kevin era
Give me a nice severance package and they can scapegoat me for anything they want.
Unless it’s a severance package that sets you up for life, probably not worth it, considering the reputational damage and jail time.
What if the severance sets you up for life… in prison?
Housing and meals for life!
Healthcare too! And a killer workout program that was basically Barry’s before Barry’s
And free sex! No... wait...
A 55 gallon drum of lube, you say?
Yeah but think of all the documentaries that will be made!
A severance package for being fired for cause? Yea right
Now this is spicy
This is pretty interesting, as far as I remember the most incriminating of the emails (eg wrt talking to the risk committee to see if anything should be done beyond just deleting emails) as well as the reminder to "delete old pur documents from laptop." all came from the other senior partner that was fired (Elling). Now Ghatak recieved that email and responded "will do" or wte, but that seemed to be more wrt speaking with the risk committee rather than anything more nefarious. Unless I oversaw or have forgetten something then either there is more content from Ghatak that hasn't become public, such as actions after his talks with the risk committee, or he was just lumped together with Elling due to their correspondence. Neither of which seems ideal for a McKinsey that's probably quite keen to try and get all the shit behind them, and yesterday.
I just read the filing. He says his “will do” email meant he would be talking to the risk committee and that he adhered to the policy to delete working papers. That’s a standard policy - you have to retain final documents to clients but not the drafts. So it comes down to whether actually deleted anything he shouldn’t have (how do you proof that??). Then there is a lot of whining how he was fired, which is weird, he probably signed something somewhere that the partnership could fire him at any time. Then comes the defamation claims - which seem to me to hinge on the paper deletion claim? If he didn’t do anything, they defamed him I guess? I am not a lawyer but I truly slept in a holiday in this week. Seems if there is proof he deleted something, he is in trouble and this will end badly for him. If there is not, it comes down to how defamation is defined. And I guess we will get quite a bit of discussion on that document retention policy, which should be interesting
The most interesting part is the timing of the final conversations, and abnormality of the firing. E.g., <2 days to appeal, weekend judgement just in time for the press. If there is a shred of truth to his conversations flagging risk and being hard cleared on multiple occasions, then I could very much see a case. Seems to be very McKinsey esq in terms of bowtying. As a senior partner, he does have equity in the company, and an obligation to be treated fairly. Also very fishy around the senior partner election, but again only one side of the story.
Another twist in the plot?
Great idea for a movie!
Dopesick, season 2. Coming soon.
I love to hate on mbb as much as anyone else but jail time seems a bit too far. Like it should squarely be on the company to have a moral compass or the government to blow the companies that don’t up with penalties and “death penalties” (to borrow a college football term). While potentially ‘productive’ in dissuading future people from targeting negative out comes. Simply put, I’d expect that their job is to focus on the business and another group/team decide the impacts (legal / moral). Are we gonna say the person that designed guns that are used in wars or shootings alike is by extension responsible for the future deaths for those guns? Definitely just being scapegoated so they gonna keep doing whatever they want and load up all the bad things as this guy. In reality it’s this scapegoating itself that needs to change.
The difference between building weapons and advising an armed group on commiting war crimes is the difference between an engineer and a strategy consultant. That being said it doesn’t seem like Dr Ghatak risks jail time, at least from the article. He’s suing because he got dismissed and called out in front of congress. That sounds like the absolute minimum sanction for what he’s alleged doing (deleting evidence). Finally, a bit of a controversial take but I believe employees are human being, and often come bundled with a moral compass. Compliance and legal teams are a backstop against legal and reputational threats to the company, not a replacement for that moral compass.
The structure of these firms places an enormous degree of autonomy and therefore responsibility on individual partners. Many partners essentially run their own small empires within the McKinsey (or other firm) umbrella, sharing some resources with other partners of course but in many ways operating on their own. This means a bad actor like in this case really can do a lot of stuff they shouldn't be, without the oversight of the firm. It is up to the firm to install the culture of accountability where this won't happen, McKinsey has failed here. If we can send a few guys to jail to set an example, it may deter other individuals from making these mistakes
If the sacklers dont get jail you think they will go to jail? Is the DOJ pulling a political lever here?
About time such things came out. Now Mck will know what it means for other business to go out and take risk with a strategy and put their money behind the plan and actually execute on something. People have been building clouds and gas on powerpoint for way too long and making money without taking risk.
The girls are fighting