Beware experts with dirty hands who leave behind a stink
Icannot recall how many case-study examples I had to “practise” to prepare for the fiveround interview process in one of the global management consulting firms I applied to a few years ago.
The interviews — in person in one case, and in the one I ended up working for, all on the phone, were gruelling to say the least. Multiple issue trees, hypotheses and mind maps later, the impression I was left with was that the sieve through which all applicants were passed left only the most analytically astute and smartest.
This impression has been reinforced by the length and breadth of work that some of the most recognisable management consultants have done, and the diversity of projects I would be staffed on when I worked for a development sector-focused firm. What the last few weeks have also shown, though, is that these places are not only sites of immense talent, but also hotbeds for an institutional culture that shows little reluctance to “bend the rules”.
Such bending isn’t rocket science, nor that risky, because when you deal in the world of advice, any failings can be attributed to the efficacy of implementation of that advice rather than the advice itself. As with Bain and McKinsey’s recent activity in SA, this applies even in instances where such advice may facilitate wanton theft of state resources under the guise of “impactful and actionable recommendations”.
For an industry that attracts the best talent and the best brains out of undergraduate and graduate courses, it is surprising that some of its most recognisable brands, McKinsey and Bain, pleaded unwitting ignorance to the misdemeanours of some of their more senior consultants. Bain’s leaders unwittingly met Jacob Zuma in his Nkandla home, and like the three wise men, allegedly came bearing live gifts in the form of cattle. McKinsey suggests that one of its former partners, Vikas Sagar, was operating alone in an elaborate scheme to fleece Eskom alongside Trillian.
Moreover, it seems in the case of Bain that there is a recurring theme of work done for specific leaders of state agencies, even prior to the awarding of contracts. It happened in the case of the SA Revenue Service where free advice was provided to Tom Moyane before he joined the tax agency, and with Sipho Maseko at Telkom before he joined the telecommunications group.
News reports over the weekend suggest that “pro bono” work was also done in the office of SA Airways CEO Vuyani Jarana.
The likes of McKinsey and Bain have found a captive market of private and publicsector clients in SA because of the key features and characteristics of how business is conducted in this country. First, the indecisiveness and lack of conviction often displayed by management teams in the private and public spheres creates a scenario where contentious management decisions receive convenient “technical cover” from highpriced advice and recommendations from these companies.
Second, the ruthless culture of winning at all costs is reinforced by some of the most prominent business leaders in SA.
Not too long before Steinhoff’s catastrophic collapse, Naspers CEO Koos Bekker said firms “seldom go under because of a failure of governance”. He referred to this as a “hygiene factor”.
THE RUTHLESS CULTURE OF WINNING AT ALL COSTS IS REINFORCED BY SOME OF THE MOST PROMINENT BUSINESS LEADERS
As Bekker would know, if you leave your hygiene routine unattended for too long the stench becomes overwhelming. In SA the smell of governance failure fills the air, and one can only hope this serves to make those in the private and public sectors more circumspect in outsourcing thinking and contentious decision-making to “expert” consultants. Once the stink raises the alarm, it is seldom those who have billed for their hours who carry the can, but those employed to make the decisions.
Nose plugs, anyone?
Cawe (@aycawe), a development economist, is MD of Xesibe Holdings and hosts Power Business on Power FM