The McKinsey Engagement

by Paul N. Friga

  The effect was excellent—the new associate did an extremely good job on his working package. The reasons for this change were twofold. On the one hand, it was about motivation: the associate could better identify his personal responsibilities, and he was given the flexibility to design and schedule his own plan (in contrast to performing support activities by taking orders). Having his own "baby" turned out to be his major motivating factor, and this probably holds true for most associates.

  The second driver of success was the clear coaching assignment. This associate had previously had three different senior associates who were each contributing a little bit to his coaching, and he didn't glean much from the experience. When the EM was assigned directly to the young associate, he was unable to delegate responsibility; the result was that the EM was forced to invest time in assisting and coaching the young colleague. Unsurprisingly, this personal attention quickly paid off, and the associate's performance rose significantly.

  STORY FROM THE FIELD—2

  Topic: A motivated client and morale-building "quick wins" lead to success. The second story from the field comes from Pedro Ramos, who has had a wealth of experience: he worked for McKinsey and BCG, moved to private equity, and finally settled with a hedge fund in New York.

  I remember two key success factors that were highlighted on a project that was focused on improving the efficiency of a large hospital in London. One key success factor was having very motivated team members, not just on the McKinsey team, but also on the client side. The hospital team was filled with superstars—the hospital's number one and number two doctors were on its team, as was the leading nurse practitioner. These individuals, who exercised power in the hospital, were very excited about the project and very engaged. Hospitals tend to be very political places, with different groups pitting themselves against each other (e.g., doctors, nurses, diagnostics, admin, and so on). To get everybody to agree on anything is very difficult, so it was very helpful to have the top people from multiple groups. It was also very important to give everyone on the project opportunities to shine and to recognize their contributions to the project.

  Another key success factor was our strategic decision to focus on "quick wins." The first issues that McKinsey addressed were those that could be easily and quickly solved—the team didn't initially focus on the tasks that could make the biggest impact in the long term, but rather on those that could be implemented in a few weeks. By moving quickly and by having some immediate results, the team was able to quell some cynicism from people outside the project who didn't really believe that consultants could help solve the problem. This, of course, opened the door to pursue bigger, long-term, and high-impact improvement opportunities at the client.

  STORY FROM THE FIELD—3

  Topic: Understanding personalities and individual drivers helps to motivate both McKinsey and client team members. Our final story from the field comes from Alain Guy, now the vice president of strategy and business development for Convertam in France. He notes that his experiences at McKinsey still greatly affect his work today, and he recalls how important flexibility is in motivating the different members of a team.

  One of the most challenging aspects of working at McKinsey is that in addition to motivating our own consultants, we also have to motivate our clients (who often assign representatives to the engagement team). Many times, and in operational studies in particular, we are placed in a position where we need to motivate our clients to move in a certain direction, and in some cases to undergo significant change. This can be difficult, as we don't have any leverage associated with power or hierarchical influence.

  One of the primary ways we can influence our client is by setting an example; this requires flexibility in dealing with different types of people. McKinsey emphasizes the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) model, with a clear understanding of what influence model should be used with each type of personality. Therefore, a good McKinsey consultant is able to use a unique toolbox for motivating people. I would say that this is not the most well-known aspect of McKinsey, but it is one that is very important.

  STORY FROM THE FIELD—BUSINESS SCHOOL EXAMPLE

  Topic: Positive reinforcement is key in motivating students who have no enforceable obligations to their organization. We return again to a student from the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business to describe motivation strategies for volunteer teams.

  Because of the voluntary nature of clubs on campus, there are varying levels of motivation. Some people are elected to positions because they feel very strongly about the club and its objectives, while others only want to spruce up their résumés. I was the president of the consulting club at the University of Michigan, and we had both highly motivated and relatively complacent members on my executive board. What makes things even more difficult is that in this type of club, the members aren't necessarily accountable to anybody—if they shirk their duties, it usually doesn't affect them academically or financially.

  In the 2007–2008 year, there were a number of issues that arose because of the motivation discrepancy. Our club was trying to organize a consulting fair, but it was very difficult to get people to perform (especially second-years, who already had jobs). To resolve this issue, we met as a group and discussed the fact that when the current second-years were first-years, they had relied heavily on the second-years to help them get internships; now, as second-years, it is their responsibility to help the first-years.

  I introduced the incentive of "board member of the month." It wasn't a monetary reward, but the recognition was motivating to most individuals. I also tried to instill more of a team feeling, where everybody was motivated to help one another rather than just focusing on his or her own tasks. The results have generally been very positive, and I have learned some valuable lessons about how motivation requires different strategies for different people.

  CASE STUDY

  OK, I have to admit . . . at times, I lost a bit of motivation on the Center Grove Study. But, don't we all at times? Here was how we worked it out.

  WHAT WE DID

  One of our key motivating factors was our end deadline and deliverable. Being cognizant of our end deadline helped to keep us on track with our work pace and efficiency. All of us got very busy with our full-time school responsibilities. At the same time, knowing that our project would culminate with a presentation to a large group of stakeholders in a public setting motivated us to put in our best efforts. I remember Alan saying once, "It was motivating to know that we were presenting to actual audiences rather than just working on a school project, and to know that at the end of the day we were making a difference. It helped our team maintain perspective when we really focused on the fact that this was going to have a real impact on people's lives."

  Despite our own high levels of motivation, we had a tough time motivating our subteams (the consulting academy members that we pulled onto the project to help us with our research during Academy Intensive Week). Because the academy students weren't as personally invested in the project as we were, and because many of them weren't particularly interested in working on a public-sector project, it wasn't a very high priority for many of them. Compounding the problem was that some students had not yet secured internships for the summer, and so they were understandably preoccupied with their search. We all discussed methods of motivating our own groups, and some relevant insights follow.

  Alan touched upon the necessity of conveying the big picture to our group members:

  I found that all of us were equally motivated, but it was hard when we all had our own teams and we had to delegate and infuse them with that passion—we understood what the end product was, but they generally didn't. It was hard to motivate them by just giving them this one silo of information to work with, without putting it into perspective among the large project.

  Shalini had a similar approach:

  For me, I tried to show them what the impact of their work was going to be, to give them examples fr
om last year. Finally, I helped them with their internship searches. My thought was that if I helped them with their own situations, they would help me with the Johnson County project. My part—character—was hard to get people excited about, so I just assigned people to things they liked.

  Shalini made an excellent point by mentioning that if nobody on our subteams stepped up to do the work, we would each end up doing it ourselves. Thus, it was better to try to motivate people and to let people choose what they wanted to work on. We also found that positive reinforcement makes a huge difference. I always make sure to acknowledge people's contributions, especially when someone takes the initiative or puts in some extra effort. I've found that this is far more motivating and increases the team's morale drastically. Similarly, celebrating achievements goes a long way toward keeping people motivated. On the Johnson County project, for example, we celebrated the project's completion by having a very nice dinner with project stakeholders.

  WHAT I LEARNED

  In this project, I dealt with much more discrepancy in motivation levels than I have in the past—not within our core team, but rather among the additional researchers we pulled in from the consulting academy. I now realize just how difficult it can be to motivate team members when they do not have much buy-in and are not personally invested in the project. Conversely, the driving motivator for our core five-person team was our potential impact on the lives of real people. When trying to motivate myself and others in the future, I will focus on a project's potential impact and also on how individual roles contribute to overall success.

  Another one of my key takeaways from this project is the importance of attitude. I have never been more convinced that being upbeat and optimistic is a key component of motivating a team. Everybody likes positive people, and it is fun to work with people who believe in positive reinforcement and frequent celebration!

  DELIVERABLES

  Figure 4-2 Motivate: Motivation Chart

  Part 2

  FOCUS

  5

  FRAME

  Figure 5-1 TEAM FOCUS Model—Frame

  CONCEPT

  Now that you have made it through the interpersonal elements of the model, it is time to move to the analytical elements. Some interviewees describe this portion as the "hard" or "task" portion, as opposed to the "soft" or "people" portion described in Part 1. They may be referring to the context rather than the degree of difficulty (in fact, many people suggest that the "soft" skills are harder to master).

  The first element of FOCUS is Frame. In my opinion, supported by the consensus of my interviewees, this is the most important of all the analysis elements. Why? From a system dynamics perspective, framing is especially critical because all subsequent activities are connected to the conclusions reached during this process. If you fail to identify the right question or if you formulate misguided hypotheses, the best-case scenario will be that the team is inefficient, but it eventually gets the right answer. The worst-case scenario is that the team is both inefficient and ineffective, as it arrives at the wrong answer and is slower to get there than would otherwise be the case. You will hear evidence of this in the Stories from the Field later in the chapter.

  The origin of the concept presented in this chapter is the scientific method, which has informed scientific and academic inquiry for hundreds of years. Its application to the business world is more recent, having been spearheaded by top strategic consulting firms in the first half of the twentieth century. Increasingly, the use of scientific method concepts such as hypothesis-driven analysis and MECE (mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive) issue trees is surfacing in corporations and government agencies. These concepts are alive and well in organizations from 3M and Procter & Gamble to the U.S. Navy.

  Done correctly, framing is the most important and powerful tool for efficient and effective team problem solving covered in this book. At the same time, it offers the most risk. While I will go into more detail within each of the Rules of Engagement that follow, I offer the following high-level thoughts for handling the inherent risks of this process:

  Be specific and focused in the development of the issue trees and hypotheses.

  Seek confirming and disconfirming evidence to prove or disprove the hypotheses.

  Remember that this is an iterative process and that very rarely do you identify the best answer in your initial thinking.

  RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

  RULE 1: IDENTIFY THE KEY QUESTION

  At first glance, this first Rule of Engagement may appear to be quite simple and obvious, and you may be tempted to move on to the second rule quickly. This is the exact reaction that causes so many problems in the framing process of engagements. Team members are tempted to just get this step out of the way without giving it much thought and move on to the collection of critical data. However, the exact wording of the key question is critical for the analysis portion of an engagement.

  Rarely does the first cut at the key question prove to be successful; several iterations are usually required before a team defines the question well. The starting point is the client (or the case in a business school setting) and what it says the problem is. The complication is that the client may sometimes be focusing on a symptom or by-product rather than on the core issue. When I coach students who are trying to land a job in consulting, we spend a lot of time practicing the art of identifying the key question for a particular scenario (the "case interview process"). This is good training, as the ability to identify the key question will be necessary for long-term success in the business world.

  So how do we find the key question? The first step is to meet with representatives of the client to understand their perspective and their thoughts on the key question. Remember that the initial attempt to formulate this question may not be exactly right. It is important to make sure that the key question is at the right level of aggregation for the project and the desired outcomes. For example, "How can our organization survive?" is very different from, "How can we improve profitability?" or "How can we generate new business?" The differences lie in scope and specificity—shorter projects must either be more specific or require a lower level of supporting data for their conclusions.

  After the initial conversations, the brainstorming process can begin. The starting point, of course, is to list the suggestions from the client and the team members and begin to sort through this list to eliminate redundancy. It is also likely that some of the ideas are subsets of others, so you want to group related ideas.

  Shown here is a starting point for key questions in business, but you need to realize that the actual key question will be client-and project-specific. Note also that this is a functional framing—there are other ways to view the key question as well (e.g., level, geography, or time).

  Strategy (based upon a model I created and refer to as the Four Ps of Strategy)

  What is our position in the market (and is it differentiated)?

  What are our organization's priorities (and what should we not do)?

  What are our organization's payments (and are they based on priorities)?

  What is our organization's performance (vis-à-vis the competition)?

  Marketing

  What is our unique selling proposition (and do our customers want it)?

  How much should we charge for our products?

  How do we best communicate our offerings?

  How should we spend our media budget?

  Operations

  How do we deliver on our business model?

  How do we reduce manufacturing costs?

  How do we increase throughput?

  How do we add capacity?

  Human resources

  How much do we pay our employees?

  Do we have the right stuff?

  How do we increase employee satisfaction?

  How do we ensure compliance with all regulations?

  Finance

  How do we value our company?

  How do we obtain funds fo
r expansion?

  How are we performing?

  Remember, the key question may or may not be functionally driven. It is always contingent upon the nature of the project. A prime example is the case study in this book, which deals with a problem that was not at all related to business functional topics (see the discussion at the end of the chapter).

  RULE 2: DEVELOP THE ISSUE TREE

  Once the key question has been clearly articulated, the next step is to create an issue tree that will help organize the analysis of options. Since this is covered fairly thoroughly in The McKinsey Mind, I will touch on it only lightly here and focus my energy on discussing ways to implement the ideas on a project. There are essentially two types of issue trees: information trees and decision trees. The starting point is the information tree, which is used to quickly get a sense of the situation under investigation. The decision tree will be elaborated upon in the next Rule of Engagement, "Formulate Hypotheses." The information tree is basically a listing of the key pieces of the current situation. Another way to think of this is that the information tree should summarize, "What is going on?" whereas the decision tree asks, "What can we do?"