Big Four Culture, HUNC Partners, and the Myth of Partnership with Angus Buchanan

I don't have neither the patience nor the personality to put up with bullshit, work with people I don't particularly enjoy. There was one time I remember my wife saying to me, it is like, you know, you're a bit miserable. And I said to her, There is literally no one in the office whose company I enjoy. Welcome to Consulting Uncensored, the podcast that pulls back the curtain on the good, the bad, and the ugly of the consulting world.

This is where real conversations happen about leadership, strategy, culture, and careers in consulting. Hosted by industry veteran Neil McNamara, each episode features candid discussions with consultants, executives, and firm leaders who are building, challenging, and reshaping the industry from the inside. No filters, no fluff, just honest insight into what actually works and what needs to change. This is Consulting Uncensored.

Here's Neil. Angus? Neil, welcome. Thank you.

Great to be here. Thank you for joining me. As I mentioned, I try not to introduce my guests, even those that I may have known for 20 or so years. I'll let you give your story and then we can jump into the content.

Well, sure. It's not an easy story in that I have not had the sort of the classic consulting career route in the slightest. So as you might tell from the accent, I'm originally from the UK and now hold a dual US UK citizenship. But I actually started my career in the British Army for 10 years, and then joined an American healthcare corporation doing corporate development work in Geneva in Switzerland.

I was there for about two years, was offered the chance to reload to the US, ended up in Nashville for four years, and then from there actually moved into consulting with my move to Chicago. And ultimately, I have now worked at three of the big four, which I think is a core reason of why I'm I'm sitting here with you, despite the fact that we we also worked at one of those big four ourselves. Exactly, exactly. So yes, as as you've seen in my posting and conversations, got some passion around talking about the big four.

And you know, kind of talk about the good, bad, and the ugly of the big four. I know we we skewed as we were talking about earlier, I might skew towards the ugly a bit much. It's just too easy. Yeah, just given a lot of content, a lot of content.

So so you know, from that that content pillar, let's say, a bunch of ways we can go, right? Like I said, we we met each other at a at a big four 20 plus years ago. When you're just talking about the big four generally and and your experience, what would be some some lanes you'd want to go down that you think would be interesting to dig into? Well, uh there are multiple ones.

So culture, leadership, toxicity of that leadership, frankly, in in in many instances. But also the teams that you have the privilege of leading, and the the people that you get to to work with, not just within the firm itself, but also from a client perspective. But it's interesting. So the the the big four are essentially three lines of business, right?

So there's tax, there's audit, and there's consulting or advisory. I I think one of the uh tensions that I saw is that while the businesses are complementary, they're actually very different. And so at all of the firms that I worked at developing solutions and platforms for the three lines of business ended up in creating incredibly vanilla platforms that didn't truly work for each of them individually. And the amount of sort of tortuous uh bureaucracy that that created was that was an eye-opener.

And so going back to the sort of the EY project Everest, yeah, you can absolutely understand, I believe, why EY chose to go down that route. For sure. I think the execution of it left a a lot to be desired, especially as one that was an expert in that that part of the those type of deals. Well, you in particular.

Well, exactly. But I could completely understand why they considered that as an option because the businesses, as I say, are complementary, but but they are different. They have different needs, they have different demands, they have different different costs. Well, and they also can they also conflict.

Yeah, exactly. Exactly. I what I what I liked about from just an industry perspective, looking at what EY did, is I loved it from a strategic perspective because they knew that two of the other big four, I can't remember which ones, I think it may have been KPMG and Deloitte, there was a structural element of those firms that it wouldn't have been possible for them to do. And so I liked the idea of okay, let's put people on the back foot.

You know, you guys can't do this, we're gonna go do it, or at least we're gonna be the first and and put you guys on the back foot by doing that. I love that. But yeah, it's a shame that then they couldn't actually execute yeah. I mean, it would have been fascinating to see how it how it shaped up.

Yeah, I mean, God knows how that how that would have ultimately turned out. But as I say, I I I can see that they why they went down that route. But you mentioned sort of structure there. So there's an awful lot of news at the moment around you know, BDO cut a bunch of partners.

Is it KPMG? I think last week cut a bunch of audit partners. And you know, why is that? And everybody automatically defaults to it's AR.

There are a lot of layoffs right now that people are just doing because it's a bad it's a bad market that's been played on big. Exactly. AI gets the sort of the blame for everything. Now, is that sort of part of the reason?

I guess absolutely. But I think structurally, the the Big Four just have too many partners. There are just too many of them. And I remember this is a few years ago, the firm that I was with announced its biggest partner class ever.

But this was just at a time where people were anticipating immense volatility with the economy. So interest rates were gonna go up, geopolitical tensions, a whole host of issues that suggested that the next 12 to 18 months was gonna be pretty rocky and and quite a difficult time. And I remember at the time thinking, it wasn't just me, it was a bunch of my fellow partners as well, thinking why are we admitting the largest class in our history given what we are anticipating the short and medium-term future to be?

So that was one, and this is where I'm a natural cynic, by the way. So I'm convinced that the CEO at the time, it's about legacy building, it's about future resume building, and so it's for like personal reasons rather than generally what is good for the firm. Because I would absolutely venture this. I think across the big four you could cut 20 to 25 percent of partners, and I don't think it would make the slightest difference to revenue in the slightest.

I absolutely would agree with you. Absolutely. And I was reading- You just wouldn't cut the ones that are driving the revenue. And again, this is the whole structural issue, right?

And I think this is where AI is going to have an impact, which is this sort of tenured, sort of like professor type of model that the big four have. And I was reading in the Irish Times very, very recently. So I saw this acronym called HUNK. Okay.

Which is high units, no clients. Oh, H U and C. Okay. And it absolutely resonates.

I know a few of those. It absolutely resonated with me because the structurally, what I've seen is that you have way too many partners with a high number of units, haven't been in front of a client for years, haven't sold anything in years, just wander from one internal role. Well, that's a big internal role. Leadership roles.

I'm going to use the errors. These these ridiculous leadership roles, and they'll host a practice or a sector call once a month. They'll plow through the most ridiculously dense deck imaginable that loses people sort of 10 minutes in. And then they'll wander from one conference to the next.

Yes. This sort of boondoggle. Conference or uh charity events? Or they'll be on LinkedIn right now.

I saw some last week of you know, posting from the charity events. Exactly. And you're thinking to yourself, I have no idea what you do. I literally have no idea what you do.

But you have a share count significantly in excess of mine, and it's not gonna go down. Yep. And this is what and I think there's a huge shift to performance pay. So I think you have choices.

So usually I'm gonna call them hunks now. I love that. I like I like that acronym, yes. So I think the the the big four should be more aggressive at forcing retirement on people who are vested.

Yeah. So they they got the retirement benefits in the bag, they've got the pension, they've got all of that sort of stuff. But maybe the early mid-50s, let them go to free up space and compensation for the line partners who are the ones selling the work, hustling, delivering, building teams, recruiting. Yeah, those are the people that deserve it.

Or if you don't ask them to leave, just say, right, we're taking your share, we're gonna reduce your share count by 50%. You can still be in this bullshit leadership role, but you but you're gonna be compensated less than the people who are actually selling more. And that and that makes a lot of sense. But here's the problem is that to use your new acronym, the hunks are the ones actually making the decisions.

So how do you how do you change the structure to actually right? You almost need to bring in, and I've said this a bunch, you mean nobody's done this yet. Somebody needs to bring in an outsider to be the CEO. That's the only the only way you actually would make that, you'd be able to make that structural change, I feel like, is you gotta bring you gotta bring a maverick or an outsider in to actually do something different.

I'm with you 100% on that. So you are seeing movement in that regard, not at the CEO level, but you are seeing movement in that regard. Because there are some firms who have outside directors. KPMG doesn't.

There's certainly one that I worked at who does have outside directors. I thought that was a good step. That's a really good step. But I do think you're absolutely right.

That wouldn't that be fascinating for a big four to do an external CEO search? Yeah. Grab like, you know, some it was like Centurion. I mean, just there's all sorts of options that you need to go to.

Because they really can know how to run a firm. Or run it. Run it like a business. Different perspectives, different insights, different, you know, uh knowledge of industry broadly.

I think it would just be a fascinating thing to do. Now that there are all sorts under the partnership agreement, and I'm not an expert in this in the slightest. Yeah, you've got to be CPA, you've got to be this. There are there are all sorts of all sorts of things that need to be taken into account.

But I think exploring something like that would be absolutely fascinating because the way I think you you will have experienced this. A senior partner, the CEO, yeah, comes up for re-election. You know, the partners that are just given a slate. These are the four or five people, and they've all been curated, they've all been chosen by some mass of that, whoever it is.

And you know, they they do the roadshows, they do the hustings and all that sort of stuff, and you you end up, you know, electing a new partner. But to be honest, it was a bit of a dog and pony show, to be honest with you. But I think getting back to this point, just considering an outsider, that would be something up here. Some he's gonna have to do it again because there's just too much evolution of the market, I think, for them to really stay kind of that those aircraft carrier levels that don't ship.

They don't, but I don't know that the market's gonna allow, even like the going back to the Evers example. I think I think the firms are gonna have to start thinking more creatively to really be competitive. And that that's a way to think about how to again bring somebody in that's actually gonna run this business much better than just some legacy audit partner that's very politically aligned throughout the organization. Well, I I I I agree with that.

So here's the thing, right? So if you look at growth within the big four and some of the other consulting shops as well, I mean, clearly it's market economy dependent, but they'll grow what, I don't know, five, six, eight percent a year. And they all claim that that they're differentiated over each other. And the reality is none of the big four is particularly differentiated.

There are select circumstances where they could be, but just like broad market-based. You don't you don't film out there and be like, oh, these guys have this strong we're pretty much all the same, right? And so I was chuckling. So AI hit the scene.

What was it, about two years ago? Was it? Yeah, was it probably the last 12 months is when it's like gotten really accelerated. Yeah, yes.

And so what happens is suddenly everything suddenly became AI enabled. So it was exactly that it was exactly the same solution. But now it's AI enabled, yes. But now it's you know, whatever the solution name is, now it's AI enabled solution name.

And everybody did it. And it it it's like, but the whole of the big four did it. So the bar is being raised, but everyone is at the same level on the bar. Yep.

And so I anyway, I'm a bit of a natural cynic here. There is very little, but to your point, there might but there may be slight areas where there truly is some form of differentiation industry expertise or a technology, or or just you know, great people, right? You can have you know a team that's just the best at this in the world. Yeah, but you'll have some of that in each of these.

Exactly. I remember being on all sorts of internal calls, and the leader would say, Oh, yeah, and we're we're completely differentiated, none of our competition has this. And it's like, what are you talking about? You don't have a clue.

Of course they have this. And I remember because I worked at three of the big firms. Right, yeah. So I would go from one firm, I'd I'd join another firm, and at the new firm, it would be, yeah, we've got this this technology, this solution, no one else has this.

And it's like I was working on that at the place that they just came from. And by the way, it's actually more sophisticated than what you have. Or maybe that's today, but it's a matter of months before one of the other firms is going to figure it out and copy it. Yeah, exactly.

I mean, it's just like you you you have months of differentiation for like a technology like that, and then everybody figures it out, and everybody has the same type of development expertise that can go and copy it. Yeah, it's just it's months of of an advantage, not not years, and certainly not sustainable. That that that well, that that that's exactly it. So it it it was oh yeah, but I always got to chuckle.

So it's AI this, and yeah, you know, in six months' time, whatever the new buzzword is, yeah, that that's that's gonna be the one that they'll they'll carry through. That's the other thing that's so funny. There's such, and some firms are are more like this than others, but there's it's just a follow-the-leader. Oh my gosh.

Whereas, like you said, like you know, when somebody's gonna become AI powered and now they're gonna be A-powered, like one of the things, and you know, this this is this will be a little controversial, but when you know, I can't remember the order of maybe Deloitte was the first big four that had a female CEO, and then there was Pwc, then it was EY, then it was KP. It was like every you know, then it was like one had a female CEO. The next election, it was gonna have to be a female, the next, so it's like every one of them went that way.

It was kind of a funny one. It was like, well, I remember when I was at KP imagine where everybody was like, Well, the three others have a female CEO, so I'm pretty sure I'm pretty sure we're gonna be electing the the most capable woman to lead the firm now. Yeah, yeah, well, exactly. Well, having said that, I think aspiring to that is absolutely the right thing.

I have no problem with that whatsoever. I think your point though, that they just play follow the leader is very germane. I absolutely agree with that. It's catch-up, but I I do believe that generally across the board, that there is little innate core areas of differentiation.

It's pretty much pretty much the same. Having said that, I was reading that in this AI-enabled world that we're in now, EY is taking a fundamentally different approach to audit than PwC. Now, that isn't to say that either one has the correct. Well, yeah, it's definitely better.

It's different. Doesn't mean it's better. But but they do seem to be going down different paths. Who knows which of those paths is going to be the winner?

And so once we know that, then someone could claim our differentiated approach to the audit in this AI-enabled world was a difference maker. Yeah. And I I fully accept that. But uh I think fundamentally, though, when you step back about in our business, at the end of the day, you know, when you talk about like the differentiation, it's still a relationship-based sales business.

Yeah. And it's about personal relationships that you have with buyers of our services. And that it trumps everything. But you know, a trusted relationship with the CFO, engaging the firm, you know, engaging a firm on this is going to overcome somebody claiming they have a better mousetrap, a better technology, a better team, better different, you know, better industry expertise.

If that guy, you know, who's making the decision is looking at this woman partner who has a great relationship with them, has done great work for them, and she's like, no, we'll we'll do it better than them, that wins. Well, so this actually begs a this actually begs a question. So from a client perspective, what are they actually buying? Are they buying the brand, the big four brand, or are they buying the partner, the team, the competency, the capability, the cultural fit that they experience as you're going through the influencing and sales process?

I would venture that in a significant amount of the time, what a client is buying is not the brand, but it is that person, it is that delivery team. And I would further venture that a client would prefer to follow that team. Yes. Well, I think you just proved your point.

There's no real differentiation between the big four. So if you're just basically selecting between the big four in this example, it doesn't matter what logo is on the person's business card. It's what team are they getting that, you know, and what experience they have with that team that's executed for them. And if that whole team, you know, lifted and shifted, you know, from PwC to EY during the next proposal, and it could be that same team, they're gonna select that team.

Yeah. Which so again, when you're competing amongst each other in that, you know, there they're yeah, I agree. I think that demonstrates, generally speaking, that there really isn't differentiation among them. As a brand, there is specific differentiation in specific opportunities, but again, a lot of times it comes down to the relationships and experience you've had with the team that's gonna scheme the work.

Yeah, that's exactly that's exactly it. It's like an old cliche, everybody's literally it comes down to you strip everything away. So you you you've proven you have the capabilities, you have the experience, you know, the sector, blah, blah, blah, blah. You've got you all of that's sort of a given.

It just comes down to the beer test. Who do you want to have to do? Whose company are you going to enjoy being in the most? Yeah.

Yeah. For sure. And that's what it comes down to. So we we were talking earlier about the the role of partner.

I think this is probably good too, as we're talking about, you know, the you know, the differentiation, the relationships and whatnot, and you know, the partner role slash title, and the the structures of the firms, and how this, you know, the this meritocracy element really doesn't exist in the way you would think. It should. When with stepping back and looking at it, you know, there are there are partners that are driving tremendous amount of value at these firms that are getting paid less than partners that are generating very, very little value in firms.

And this concept. That again, I think neither one of us realized until we are actually partners in these firms is that you have a partner title, but you are just a glorified employee that's called a partner. It's not real equity, not real ownership, you're not in business with these guys in Cal that are also partners. You're just it's another layer of the organization.

So yeah, just thoughts on that kind of reality and personal experience there. Yeah, I well, I I think that's it's just that's true. I mean, the reality is you you have the partner title and clearly it's a partnership structure, but I think the reality is you are pretty much a glorified employee. And in my experience of the three that I worked at, I'm not going to name it.

There was one in particular where very much it was you were literally just an employee. In the others, less so. But yeah, pretty much you you are an employee. But I think what you're now seeing with AI and with you know performance-based pay, with private equity-backed challenger firms and boutiques, I think that that's gonna accelerate this employee feel.

Yes. And especially given what I what I said earlier about the hunks, if you just start just removing the non-productive partners, it's gonna feel more like a corporate type of environment. Right. Rather than this sort of job for life, you know, you've you've hit tenure, you can just hang around until you hit 60 or whatever the mandatory retirement.

I think or you're just trying to hang around until you get past. Or you're just trying to hang out. Well, exactly. Which is 60, at least at one of them, like 62 at one.

It's like 60, 62 is that sort of age age range. But I think, yeah, generally you pretty much are ultimately an employee. Yeah, I mean, it's how big are the partnerships, right? I don't know, is it 3,000, 4,000?

Yeah, it's a few thousand. Thousands. Thousands. Thousands.

You know, whatever that count is. As I said, I I'm I'm convinced there are 20, 25% unproductive, non-value added, just doing stuff that are sort of like hiding behind the scenes and doing stuff that you never have insight into. And one of the reasons I think that leads me towards feeling that you are more of an employee than a partner is the the partnership structures are very opaque. Well, not not the structures, right?

Not the legal documents, the big binder, but yeah. Yeah, maybe that was the wrong the wrong phrase. Not so much the structures, but how they operate. It's just very opaque.

How are decisions made? How are decisions made, what is communicated, how it is communicated, when it's communicated. So it's just very, very opaque. And yeah, I remember on a couple of times trying to get insight into okay, so how a partners review.

Yeah, because everyone has a boss, right? Yep. And so at year-end, just as staff goes through their their year-end reviews, partners go through year-end reviews. And it's just trying to get information, okay, what is that process?

Who sits in it? Who ultimately makes the decision? No idea. No idea.

Or every practice is different. Or every practice. Yeah, exactly. Like, I mean, where we used to be, that was like you knew it was it was one guy that made all the decisions.

Yeah. Well, exactly, exactly. But maybe this is going off at the time. I remember at one firm we were doing year-end reviews.

Not for partners, this is for staff. And this is at the time where, for various reasons, I knew I really had to leave this particular firm. And I was, you know, very close to pulling the trigger on that. And we had year-end reviews for for the staff.

And there was one person that we were reviewing, it was senior manager, director. All the metrics were there. I mean, just nailed it. Utilization, engagement, not revenue, engagement, managed revenue for the engagement.

Just every metric. It was just brilliant. And super smart. I mean, there was no questions about that.

But in that year, there were two and maybe three HR complaints for almost like physical abuse. Picking up a laptop and smashing it, screaming, just ridiculous behavior. And this person was on a big project. It wasn't mine, but it was a big project, you know, a lot of revenue associated with it.

And we had the year-end review. And let's say they were rated one to five, and let's say five was the highest rate. Okay. Yeah.

And the career leader was sort of giving the spiel. And it was like, and I recommend a five. Has to be a five. And it's like, okay.

Two or three HR complaints for abusive behavior. What is the matter with you? This is absurd. And I was the only partner in the only one that had that reaction.

I mean, the only one. Driving a lot of revenue. Driving a lot of revenue. Yeah.

And it's like, this is not who I am. This isn't who we should be. This is utterly ridiculous. Do you realize the message that that is being sent?

Yep. Yep. And anyway, shortly thereafter I left. And when I left, it was never ever for money.

Ah. We've never spoken about that. Never ever for money. But I one of my kind of compensation kind of philosophies is that if you'll leave for money, you'll leave for money.

And so this is more of in our hiring now, right? It's like, so if I'm gonna, you know, if you got guys that are shopping around and I need to, you know, buy them out to come work for us. Well, they're gonna get that firm. Why wouldn't they just do it to me later?

Yeah. And so you really have to be careful when you're enticing people only with you know big promises and money there because they will just there's nothing to stop some from just leaving for more money somewhere else. So it's well, I I remember, and I'm not gonna name the individual in the slightest, but I I I think you will know who I'm referring to. But I I left a firm and you know, I spoke to uh practice leader and said, you know, this is this is what is gonna happen.

And uh just looked at me and said, Well, we'll match and give you 25% extra. That that was literally the response. If you give me 25% extra, why am I maybe so I'm you're underpaying me by 25%, right? That's exactly it.

And and I thought, well, hold on. So my value is is a match plus 25%. Why am I not making that number? Exactly.

Exactly. Can you explain that one to me? And it was extraordinary because it said to this person that said that, in their mind's eye, the only thing that motivated anyone was compensation. I think I know who you're talking about.

Yep. I mean, it it was uh yeah, that's that was it. It was absolutely crazy. Fear and compensation.

Those the the those were uh known known some leaders that that's kind of what those are the levers they pull. Yeah, but yeah, that comp lever was a big one, and yeah, couldn't understand why anybody, you know, that that's how people are motivated. That's what I have to do. And yeah, it was crazy.

It was crazy. This discussion reminds me of uh like my first business mentor, like when I was freshman, sophomore, and college guy that was dad of a girlfriend of mine back in the day, who was the Anderson partner, and so he kind of took me in his ring when he knew I was gonna be, I was probably gonna major in accounting and all this stuff. And and I I remember I didn't understand what he meant by it. But he's like, listen, Neil, this is you're gonna go, you're gonna start working, and and you're gonna be grinding, you're gonna start, you're gonna do really well, and you're gonna be put on this path to partner, and you're gonna do all the things and you're gonna get there.

And he's like, but then you're gonna get you're gonna get to that point where you you know you can be partner, and then you're gonna need to ask yourself whether you really want to be. And I did not, I was like, well, right, I mean, okay, if I'm gonna do all this, why wouldn't I? And it really became evident actually when I was up for partner, this all came back, and it was this whole thing of, and this is where the reality of partner being just a glorified employee helped. Because I was like, I'm like, okay, you're asking me to, you know, join this partnership, which effectively you're saying, all right, if it's truly a partnership, I should look at it and say, Well, I'm now in business with every one of you partners, right?

And I was like, so if I was to start a business tomorrow, would I start a business with any of them as partners? Fuck no. Right. Like maybe 5% at best, maybe five guys that have, you know, five individuals that I'd worked with over the course of my career, would I have ever, and I've got one of them working with me now.

He's one of the five, right? And so that I really struggled with that. And then what was able to kind of get me over the hump was accepting the realizing that, oh, actually, I'm not this isn't a real partner. This isn't real equity.

This is just, I'm just gonna be a very highly compensated guy with a partner title. I'm not gonna really be getting, you know, I'm not gonna be compensated based off of the value I'm creating for the firm. And like I said, it's not it's not like I have real equity that's gonna grow in value that I'll be able to sell someday. I'm just okay.

I'm just a highly highly compensated guy with a title of partner versus VP or president. But it's interesting you say that because that's actually a critical question to ask. So if you have a genuinely high performing, let's call it direct, right? So that's the step below partner, a very high performing director.

That is a critical question to ask. Is do you want to be a partner? Yeah. Back to our point of realizing this after a partner, I think the firms do a terrible job of explaining what the hell it even means.

Well, what is a partner? How are you even compensated? Right? I think it's a it's a big mystery until you actually get there.

Well, it's a huge mystery. And they're in there in life some tales, but which we'll get onto. But it it is a critical question to ask. And I've known and friends of mine to this day, incredibly high-performing directors, who have left because they just said, I just don't want to be a partner.

I see what you go through, I see your life is not for me. It's not something that I that that I want, which I can completely uh respect and understand. It's not for everybody. And then the the admittance process, I think to your point, needs to be needs to be enhanced and improved.

I I remember when when I went through it, so you you've got to fill your business case in, you've got to do all of this sort of stuff, you've got to have you know sponsors and supporters and all of this, and interviews and god knows what. But I remember distinctly saying to my wife that it got to a point where I said, I just don't care about this anymore. Because yet again, at like five o'clock on a Friday, it was you need to fill this form in, and we need to have it by you know midnight Eastern time.

And I looked at this thing, I said, I have given you this information every which way to Sunday over the last, I don't know, six to nine months. It's an absurd process. And I said to my wife, I said, I'm done. I I just I literally cannot be bothered with this crap anymore.

And so I I guess I submitted it. I don't know what happened. Anyway, it sort of worked. And now I've seen the partner admittance process at other places.

It's awful, it is the most stressful thing imaginable. I do agree that as part of the admittance process, there could be greater clarity and communication to potential partners as to what it means. Because it's dark, and then your made partner, and then it's like Pandora's box is open. And I do think that that sort of runway or that that ramp could be improved because it is a truly, truly stressful process to go through.

I mean, right up to the end, and sorry, here's the other thing is so when you are a new partner, it's a different job spec. Yeah, but but uh how do I phrase it? It's not that your behaviors change, but the sort of the but certain things change. And what I have noticed is that sometimes it takes a decent period of time for a new partner to truly understand what it means to be a partner.

For sure. Yeah. And I remember I was getting calls one, two years after people had made partner. It's you know, can I do this and can I do that?

And it's like you're a partner. Yeah, makes sense. Just do it. Well, what what what happens if you know I make the wrong decision?

You own the business, someone will slap your wrist and you know, or for political identifyers get fired. Which again, and and which again means you're not a partner. Yeah. Because you can't just, you know, if it if it's this easy to say we're cutting like the news last week, KPMG cutting 10% of it's not a true partnership if you can just rift 10% of the partners like that.

Well, well, yeah, but that's true, but it but it gets back to the earlier conversation. I think you have to have that more corporate mentality. Oh, I agree, but there's just but but it's not a partnership, but but it's not a true partnership, yeah. But then does that even exist?

No, no, I mean, you know, if you think it's you don't pretend like it, like you know, when you're the partners' meetings, like don't act like you know, you don't kind of blow smoke and act like we're all in this together, you know, no, we're all part of this big entity, we're all the results of the firm somehow ties into our compensation at the end of the day, but it really doesn't. It's only you know, it's only ties into a sliver of it because your boss sets what your actual target compensation is and whether the firm comes in at 101% or 98%, you know, of that that impacts what your final payout is.

But you know, it's not like we're really you know sharing that my that my units you know tied to a profit share that's gonna flow to me based on the firm prop. Well, I I I remember I was I was chuckling. So uh I remember when I was leading a national practice and it came to budget, budget time. And so the you know, the the center just sent me all of this budget material, and I had to do market studies and trends analysis and competitor analysis and this whole rigmarole.

And it was my sort of first time doing it, and I thought, great, I'm I'm gonna go to town. And I spent a ton on this. Did some actually really good work and submitted it, and it was like, yeah, numbers too low. You guys do it tell me with the number of E to me, please.

You know, yeah, and it was like it was literally, yeah, numb numbers too low. Well, I did everything that you said. There's some serious hardcore and analysis here. What?

Add 10%. Too low, too low. It got to the point. Well, I again I I just gave up.

I said I'm sick and tired of this. And it's like, you have a number, give me the number, and that will be my budget. Yep. And my commitment to you is I will do whatever I can to try to hit this ridiculous number that you've just given me.

But let's not play games here. Yeah, the top-down just is what it is. Yeah, you talked about the partner. I mean, my the most ridiculous partner promotion story that I have was in the the first time that I was actually on the panel as an evaluator.

Oh, okay. I never did that. It was actually it was a good pro it was a really good process. Really enjoyed it until the very end.

Because we go in, we have all it was, you know, we it was kind of all the different practice leaders. You had like the account advisory and the diligence, integration separation. So I actually had my own people, right? Technically, they were there.

And so we we go through, and at the end of the day, right, you got to go and you do a force ranking, and uh we do the force ranking, and that's what kind of gets submitted up to the CEO. And I I remember this very specifically. Yeah, there was uh because it was one of my people. Um it was I think there were 17, let's call 17 people up.

She was the 17 out of 17 by every single evaluator on the panel. It was like the last place person comes back to us, and the female CEO took the female that was ranked 17 out of 17, circled her, pulled her up to number four, and the you know, white male that was number four, got to take another lap. And I was just like, and again, I should have been like happy, right? Because my person made it.

I'm like, you've got to be kidding. That's how this place is run. Like, this is how we're making decisions here. And there was really what got very uncomfortable is that everybody, again, like numbers aren't terribly secret on like you know who's selling a bunch of work, you know who's managing, who has a lot of, you know, you might not have access to managed revenue numbers, but you can kind of do the math, right?

You can look on the staffing calls and say, well, this partner's running this job and has these two people working for him, and that's all that's working for him. So can I not manage it on Reddit? So then I have other, even I have other partners come up to me, younger partners in the practice that are reporting to me. They're like, You gotta tell me how that happened.

And I was like, I kind of can't, because I'm not gonna lie to you. And if I tell you the truth, I'm probably gonna get in trouble. So how about we just not talk about it? It's just it was just unbelievable.

I I mentioned the the the largest part of the class that that we admitted. I mean, I remember seeing the list and you're reading through the names, a lot of names. And it's I mean, to your point, you just know, and it's like, you've got to be kidding me. You've got to be kidding me.

You've got to be kidding me. How did he get on here? This is absurd. And and so it's like sort of the you know, the deep state is at work, sort of behind the scenes, just doing its thing.

But but here's the thing though. I think that the metrics that are used to consider future partners need to be re-evaluated as well. Because, you know, in my experience, generally what it is, it's a three-year look back at you know your metrics, right? So it's revenue, it's engagement revenue, it's utilization, it it's you know, hard, quantifiable data.

Oh, and also your uh your performance ratings, right? Just hard data, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick. Which suggests that the sole criteria to be a good partner is your ability to sell and deliver work. Okay.

Not gonna disagree with that. It's pretty important. Pretty important. If you can't if you can't do that, you can't be a partner.

I I agree, but it is not the sole for sure. They're not the sole bases on which to make someone a partner. And what generally uh isn't taken into account or wasn't visible from my perspective is what are their leadership qualities like? Can they build high-performing teams?

Do people like working with them? And it is not so much, you know, are they popular? Yeah, but are they respectful? Perspective that people want to work on their projects.

People want to work on their project. Will people do extra work for them? Will people go the extra yard? One of my questions when I was on these panels, even for MD, was I always said, give me five people that you can call on Friday night with a proposal that'll work through the weekend with if you can't name those people, you're not gonna be successful in this role.

Well, that's exactly it. What are their communication skills? What are their client relationship skills? What have they contributed from a thought capital, from an IP POV development?

Because in order to sell and deliver work, you've got to create teams to do that right with you. And so too often I think I think people were admitted into the partnership on a false data set. And so they may have ticked the box on a particular client for a particular type of project work, but when that client project ended, that particular type of work ended, they were lost. And no one wanted to work with them.

But you could have found out all of this before I could. found uh I found it out uh beforehand and I think uh this sort of a segue now into training because uh generally in my experience uh big four training uh is pretty uh average it's a joke and and I'm being I'm being polite in saying that it's average because so I've I I've been out of a big four environment now for coming up to 12 months so things could have changed but there was zero training on leadership correct communication styles problem analysis solution development nothing nothing uh or basic consulting skills there was a ton of training on you know this is how you create a TSA schedule this is how you do synergy or CPE stuff or ethics and compliance stuff exactly which which is all relevant and good stuff but there was frankly zero training on how to be a good consultant yes that's that's only in the big four that's really only done through direct mentoring and that's where you know that that's that's how it happened that's the only way it happens it's definitely not institutional and and and to me it is a it is a huge huge weakness when I was in the the big four environment that capital wasn't allocated to training people to be really good consultants.

Where then segues into your ability to enhance your ability to be effective at building relationships. Yes and then the trading that we did have tens hundreds of millions of dollars poured into the most childish crap imaginable that just ticked the the the latest fad or trend that was going on in the economy. And I I remember thinking to myself or in the culture or in the culture and you're thinking to yourself this is the most childish nonsense that I've ever come across and I sometimes think almost what they should do is just give everybody a subscription to the journal Wired magazine and and maybe one other so you so you've got you know finance and business covered you've got technology covered and maybe throw in another one and just just say read.

Right? Read. It'll save ourselves a ton of money it'll be yeah HBO save ourselves a ton of money because it'll be more fun it will and and those actually care will use it and learn. And those that don't are the same ones that sit in there and work or literally skip the dang classes and have somebody sign them in.

I I I will say this though so before I I I was in the Big Four I spent two years at Accenture and best training I've ever that doesn't surprise me ever been on. So this is the early 2000s I don't know if they still operated or not but I've been St. Charles St. Charles yeah yeah best training I have I mean that's Anderson right anderson like I said they they they they really screwed some things up but there were things they were head and shoulders yeah better than they talk about like okay so this is that's an interesting our earlier comment our conversation around the lack of brand differentiation Anderson had it.

Now they had it also because of what we said how you differentiate is to relationships they had took a differentiated approach to client and employee relationships and as a strategy took such good care did you know did better training really I mean the way they ran that firm was was truly better than which shows that like it's back like it was disgraced but it's back. It's a publicly traded you know the that name is on a publicly traded company now now just what? How many years were 20 yeah 20 years removed from Enron less than 20.

Yeah when was it no it's okay it's 20 yeah it was 022 isn't it oh two I think is when it happened because I was over in Europe when it happened. Yeah 02 so we're 20 20 plus years removed just 20 years removed and now that disgraced firm that went out of business is did an IPO yeah different firm but the name it's this they they kept the name it the the name has brand cachet still or the others don't but I s I swear best training I've ever ever done it was outstanding. Yeah and I believe is it Deloitte is in fact KPNG do they now have dedicated learning centers down in Florida yeah they build out they did like a half a billion dollar build out of uh you know some training center on a so I I had no idea you know what they're like or how good they are but if it's anything like what Accenture was doing they'll they'll be in a good place.

They'll be in a good place. Yeah that would be yeah I didn't think about that but that like I said that that was something special people everybody everybody that went through that and I think some other firm owns it now I think it's still used as a training center or maybe maybe it's like a leased out training center not dedicated to one to one company but that it place still exists and it's legendary. It's absolutely legendary so you want to do any like toxic leadership stories those are always fun I know you have a few I have a few oh man well oh god I don't even know what it's starting to I mean maybe I'm starting to like again like how do guys and gals generally get into leadership positions in the big four like what have you seen my my premise is you know I'll take one lane there there are there are a few lanes but one of them is just simply politics just you know 100% yeah I mean that that's the biggest impact is just how politically aligned are you within the organization is is a start is is one of sorry now you do get some of the this guy or gal was a really big rainmaker maker and they throw him into a leadership position they fail because like you said they were really great at sales nobody taught him how to be a leader but you get some of that too but politics for still so that it's like toxic leadership and ineffective leadership.

But I think your last point is absolutely spot on. I think from a general perspective the higher up you go I think the more vanilla yes to to be honest with you it becomes because vanilla implies neutral haven't rocked the boat haven't created any enemies people keeps you in the seat. Keeps you in the seat people you're not offensive to people you know people yeah you know he didn't you know he doesn't piss me off you know so it it's neither one of us would have ever been considered one of the vanilla guys would we absolutely so it it it it's almost and that's not to knock anyone in these positions but it it's just the nature of the partnership structure where you go through this sort of survival mechanism.

So it's it is absolutely politics it it's being causing the minimum offense to the most people I think have I got that right? Yeah it's just not rocking the boat right yep so your other point there are way way too many people who are brilliant at serving their clients who are brilliant technically at what they do so great sales and delivery people that does not equate into being able to lead a practice 100% yep and and you're a unicorn and there's some that's the best ones and the best ones are those the ones that should be in the leadership position.

Exactly but generally they'll rock the boat so right so but what happens is you take these people and you say because you're great with this client you're churning revenue you're great at your job you're now going to lead this position and it's well maybe that type of role is not the best fit for that person but what you should be doing is doubling down on their ability to serve that client and maybe other clients and compensating them appropriately for it too compensating for that effort because I've absolutely you know had conversations with some folks and they have admitted all I want to do is just sell work for my client yeah and deliver work for my client I hate the politics I hate the bullshit I hate the bureaucracy I just want to get in and do X with client which is why which is why you've got to modify the comp structure to allow for true differentiated pay for doing that to three X others because it's true value degree.

Well well comp is a significant part of it but I'm gonna double back on this we don't train people how to be leaders. Right yep yeah you train we train them to be technically incredibly proficient. Yep we train them to be really really good at what they do which you have to do but as you go higher up in the organization you need different skills and different skills are demanded from that role but we don't give people the training and the guidance that they need. So often what you'll see again the higher up you go absent this training suddenly you can absolutely tell they've been to you know presentations coach they've been to a communications coach the corporate communications people who are about their ass corporate marketing is the these are the themes you need to bang on about the whole time.

So when these people are now giving presentations it it's a literally a scripted robot. And it is a scripted robot with every buzzword you could possibly imagine just scattered in everything that they say. And after a while you're thinking can you talk to me like I'm a normal human being you're allowed to say uh you're allowed to say um you're allowed to fuck it up but talk to me with genuine empathy on on a one-to-one basis but you're literally a scripted buzzword corporate robot at the moment and I I people deserve more than that I I got a good example of that where in sh there was the office managing partner Chicago was introducing the new partners at like the annual partners dinner or whatever yeah there's something there's like annual partners dinner and they always announce and and there were only like I don't know a dozen of us there.

And to the scripting point like basically she just read off a script of like the person's background or whatnot like there are a dozen of us. You couldn't have spent like five minutes getting like actually shouldn't you like know this you should know this person. You should actually have a personal anecdote or something. Again we're not talking about 50 people that you have to go do this with it's just like take the time and be human be genuine like and and actually act like you know who the hell these people are that you're introducing as new partners to a to a room of partners and their spouses or significant others you know all it's just it's amazing.

And then and I guess I get it you know you've you've probably got lawyers saying you can't say this you can't say you can't do it. And I get that. I don't want to so oversimplify it but this human element is is missing. Yeah.

And when you're in a relationship business it's that that truly counts more than anything else. And I mean as consultants right we live on buzzwords but just kill the buzzwords. I mean just get rid of them and and just sort of talk like a normal human being yeah it's it it's interesting but I do believe that that is the one of the most significant gaps in my experience across the big four is is not putting enough attention on leadership training and leadership activity. No it makes a lot of sense I didn't think about that but I didn't get any of it and the only reason I was successful is because I got to ride shotgun alongside a very good leader and just kind of absorb by being around it and and seeing it and having some probably just natural abilities to do that.

But I wasn't given any and again when I got thrown in the role I got like a month's notice so it was like a it was a bit of a kind of chaotic kind of turnover. There was no succession planning no planning no no pre preparation it was like hey this person's being moved out do you want it if so we'll consider you four weeks later it's yours. Yeah here you go and that was kind of like I the it was I was given a a list of things I couldn't do like we talked like okay you can't fire this guy you can't fire this gal I know you probably don't want to but they we have they generate too much revenue and but then it was like oh you're just thrown to the wolves so so so what is your view on this thing?

Because we mentioned this a couple of times so hypothetically you have a rainmaker who is absolutely toxic. What do you do with that person? You have to get rid of them. Well I think you you you try to see if it's possible to work the toxicity out to change behaviors which you're probably not going to be able to but I think you I think you at least make an effort to see if you can modify behavior you also have I do think there are some people I think you can different people would define toxicity a little different some people can be a little horrible I think there are people that that exhibit behaviors and they may not realize how they're there maybe just people that aren't self-aware but not like a total piece of shit.

That makes sense there are people that that that exhibit poor behaviors that one could view as toxic or not aligned to a culture or whatnot that it just might be something that it's a weakness they have and they don't realize it and when brought in and they'd be and they're not again going back to they're also not a piece of shit then I think you give them a chance and try to work through it. But let's say they're unfixable. Yeah let's say they're unfixable many at that level most are at that point because they've been empowered to be that way I think that the damage that's done by by allowing everybody in the the firm the practice or whatnot to see that this guy or gal can get away with the things they're getting away with and it's simply because or you know they intuit that it he or she is a rainmaker and so then it just again it just destroys your culture and just shows that nobody cares about actually how you behave as long as you as long as you make it rain you can do all these you can do all these things.

And we don't care we don't care it's kind of like this back to our point on like core values core values are bullshit because the these firm that are on the wall these firms don't actually apply them the day-to-day operations and decision making of the business or you wouldn't have those people that rise to great positions andor were just left there because we're worried about losing their their revenue yeah I mean I would happen to agree with you I also believe deep down nobody is irreplaceable 100% I'm with you on that one too and so if if you do have an absolutely toxic rainmaker and that person is removed I think that person can be replaced.

Now will it will it be in that year maybe but they can be replaced but the message it would send to the organization to the staff critically to the staff would be immeasurable in terms of its positive impact yeah the positive impact yeah it that's it's doing the right thing I think I I think very few people would argue that's not the right thing to do. I think a lot of people would say here's some reasons you don't do it even though it's you know like the dance are you like like okay it's a really hard thing to do like you said it can it it can do some near term you know value destruction but like you said the the longer term but again right all these partners they're only compensated on the near term so when you look out and it everything everything is about like your this year's you know cash income that comes to me and then it resets and you know and and in three years maybe you're like you don't you don't make those decisions that are for the very few of the firms do I see consistently or you know sometimes not at all ever are doing things with the five 10 year outlook because most of the partners that are in leadership positions are going to be out of the firm and retired within five and ten years so they don't care.

Which is also part of the problem of the structure and the culture and the leadership. But but you've but you've absolutely nailed it and and which is my understanding I could be wrong which is one of the reasons Project Edbris failed. Yes because of the the US retired partners I believe had had a a a significant issue with it. But you're absolutely right and I don't know how you change that dynamic because structurally and unless you fundamentally change retirement benefits you pensions you know what what whatever it may be but you nailed it.

I mean if you're a tenured partner a handful of years not many years away from from retirement you're not gonna do a thing that is gonna impact what your post-retirement situation will be. Not a fit. Yep not a thing. Yeah that's and again I don't know how you I don't know how you get around that it it's this is where I go back to the earlier point of you gotta you bring an outsider in that says okay well this is you know if these are the values of the organization this is the culture that we want these are things we have to do differently and we have to work people out like this and not let them just say because they generate $10 million of revenue exactly so you go back to the hunks.

Yes you reduce the hunks in the partnership that's what you have to do. Or you overhaul the compensation structure right I mean you change the and I and I think that's going to happen. I think they have to I I think the that's inevitable the structures yeah the the structures are outdated they don't work anymore and you look at even like what's going on because you think about like you know these the other thing about pushing partners out a little early right which we agree you know is is the right thing for the firm but also if you think about again from the perspective of the partner the employee themselves you know if you get they accelerate okay you're 55 years old they accelerate your deferred comp, which is like a 10-year payout and whatnot, that's not gonna I mean people are living like 90 plus now you aren't going to be able to live off that for the next 40 years.

But also if you leave in your mid-50s to really make a pivot like what are you going to do? You can't go work for a competitor because then they'll take you for gill they'll look they'll F with your deferred you know comp plan and whatnot you aren't at a point to do like a very few people can go and do a complete career shift or whatnot. So the people you know the these partners that are getting pushed out like this are in real trouble as far as like what the hell are they going to do even okay yeah fine they did right by them but where are you gonna I mean and again unless they're gonna let you go and work for a but they've also gotten super aggressive at preventing these retired partners from going to other boutique consulting firms or mid-market accounting firms that are now PE back and trying to bring bring guys together it's like you can't have that both ways so they're yeah they're there that that's gonna have to change.

I I completely I mean they they've got to defend their competitive position. So so so so so I get that but I but I think this is part of that there is no quick fix here. No and you know anything that is done has to have a much longer timeframe of it. So you you take a like a 55 year old tenured partner vested partner.

Yeah it it's almost like setting the expectation that when that partner became a partner at 38 I'm just plucking a number up right so 38 to 55 whatever the math is on that but you've then got to just set the expectation you're gonna be making good coin. Don't spend it all well yes that's true. Yep yeah and and I actually had some good partner mentors that that just told me that directly it was actually very helpful very helpful advice. Don't spend it all because if it happens that at age 55 given that you're fully vested you have to leave you are going to need you're gonna have to fund you know maybe you know a few years out of earned income.

Yeah. And you just have to set that expectation because you you've seen this a a thousand times I I've experienced this directly so you know new partners they get their tax distribution yeah yeah oh great I've got you know a big dollar account I'm gonna go and buy a car or I'm gonna go and buy a second house or whatever. Then the tax payments come in and then the tax payments come in and it's like well I don't have any money. But we gave you tax distribution but I bought a bunch of exactly again I had really good partner mentors that are like don't like literally don't spend any of it like live live you know live as a senior manager salary do not do a thing different for a couple years till you figure out what this cash flow because it's very confusing on how this cash flow actually works.

That's exactly what I said to new partners two years. Yeah two two years two years yeah you you gotta let two years run until you exactly know what your cash flow and your tax situation is before you make any major capital decision. This again is where the pay performance works so much better. Don't, you know, the deferred comp stuff is just it's outdated.

And I know they're doing it as a as a uh uh by design to trap these guys and keep them in. But man, that's um well, that's big handcuffs though. I mean, this they're yeah, they used to talk about golden handcuffs for a for an S. They are reasoning.

They are. And by design, I mean, I think that you joke around, one of my first clients in the Virtus world was this really amazingly eccentric entrepreneur, you know, owner, you know, founder-owner of a business. It's kind of like the first time I'm working like in the middle market with a founder-run business, and it was just in the and the guy was crazy in a very cool way, but all over the place. And uh we're sitting here debating something he's wanting to do, and he just stops the conversation.

One does not stay at a firm for 20 years and not be a little risk averse. And and and that's you know, you you think about the profile of you're more non-traditional, going military, but a lot of us just got an accounting degree or a master's or an MBA, and then you go in there and we're not like big risk takers, but kind of by design, right? So, so again, they get you, you're in your mid to late 40s, and they're showing you your projections on your long-term incentive plan and and all this stuff.

And you and I because I've talked to many partners after I've left that want to go, they're like miserable, but they can't get themselves to just do it because they're scared. Yeah. And it's not even a golden handcuffs, it's just a once you kind of get institutionalized in there, if you can put up with the bullshit, it isn't that hard. Like it is if you want to run and gun and want to like just be a you know, be like a really good leader and generate tons of revenue for the firm because you're you know that type A and you're you know the firm will let you work as hard as you want and just run you on the ground.

It's what they're doing to me. But also, if you just want to kind of just coast and make good money, you can do that for a long time. You can though, Neil, but but but coasting has a cost. Oh, it does.

It does, which which which is primarily in enormous stress, yeah. And especially the way that the partnerships now seem to be operating, with where there is you know less willingness to keep partners, right? If if you know is deemed to be surplus to requirement, however, that is defined. So coasting comes at an absolute cost.

That I almost wouldn't recommend that. No, I know I don't recommend that. I don't recommend that. I'm not suggesting you are, but that you you either go for it as hard as you possibly can and try to contribute and perform as well as you can, and it and if you hit or exceed budget, fantastic.

And if you don't, well then it is what it is, but at least you can't be accused of not trying. I and I'll I'll add to that. I when I think of costs, I actually think of more of the personal cost. Because it doesn't feel good to do that.

Most most of us aren't wired to half asset, and then you're also you're unhappy there, and that precipitates being unhappy, and you're kind of coasing because you're unhappy. So you're just constantly not really that happy, and the only reason you're there is for the money. Yeah. And that's well, then you should that's but there are so many, there's so many guys and gals like that.

It's just it's unfortunate. I just I like I said I've talked to so many of them, and they just can't bring themselves because they, you know, they they they've kind of you know gone up to a certain lifestyle, like again, right? You you start getting that money, you start incurring these fixed cost lifestyle and whatnot. It's like, well, if I leave, I've said there there are plenty of ways to make lots of money in this world.

You don't have to do that, but you get institutionalized. But I but I agree with you. I mean, having uh an enhanced risk appetite is absolutely part of it. But just look at me.

So I was in the army for what 10 years in the UK, lived in Switzerland, left the army, joined uh uh a US corporation, moved to Nashville, went through the stress of the green card, all that sort of stuff, then moved to Chicago, moved into consulting, three of the big four in accenture. I mean, yeah, yeah, it's it's you've got it, but but I was always at that that mindset. If I wasn't happy, I I was not gonna hang around. Well, I just was not gonna hang around because I don't have the personality to put up or the patience, I am a massively impatient person.

I don't have neither the patience nor the personality to put up with bullshit, work with people I don't particularly enjoy. There was one time, this is a few years back, I remember my wife saying to me, It is like, you know, you're a bit miserable. And I said to her, There is literally no one in the office whose company I enjoy. And I'm talking part of the company.

Not stuff. Right, right. Not star. Generally the staff fantastic, by the way.

Yeah. But it was literally not all partners, but my immediate sort of work cohort. There literally wasn't one whose company that I enjoyed. I didn't want to have lunch with them, didn't and it's like I have to go.

And then wrapped around that, there were other issues, leadership and the whole stuff. That's why I said it was never the money. Yeah. That makes sense.

That makes sense. It was never the money. It's also, I think that in my experience, having lived overseas and worked overseas as well, there is something that's also European. Like I I feel like even within the structure, the big four structures overseas, is that it's much more common for partners, leaders to jump around from firm to firm.

I think there's something culturally, I think also structurally there, they don't tie you up as much. But I think I I remember being over there and also just paying attention from having been over there, there was a lot more common for guys and gals to kind of to jump around there. And again, I also it's probably just like that personality. Like if I'm miserable, why should I stay here and put up as bullshit?

I got somebody else, I can I can do the same thing across the street. And like I said, I'm not going over there to just try to get more money. I'm going over there because you guys saw it. Well, that's part of it.

So it's almost sort of linking back to the almost the it's linked to your coasting comment. I could have sucked it up and done my job. I was good at my job. But I was just miserable like anything.

I said it's not my personality, I'm just not gonna do it. I've talked to so many people that say the same thing, but I yeah, I just I don't have the risk appetite to leave. Yeah, I remember I left one of the firms, and the comment from the actually the service line leader was, oh, what about the pension? I really don't give a shit about the pension, to to be to be really honest with you.

If if if this is gonna be my working life for the next 15 years, that's the thing. Like, what's what's worth what's worth your misery? Yeah, right, like what would you what would somebody have to pay you to be miserable every day? I mean that's kind of the way you have to look at it.

It's like guys, what is this? Is it? So here's a story toxic leadership, but just shitty leadership. So the the this same person.

And again, this was just at the point where I was deciding to I was gonna leave. And I was summoned. Summoned summoned to New York. I've been summoned.

Oh no, no, no, no. I I had to present, I was leading some internal thing, whatever it was. And so I'd been summoned to present sort of you know the the status and the update for this big sort of internal initiative. My practice leader was with me, and we were sitting outside this guy's office, and he was a service line leader, so he had a very plush office, he had the sofas outside and you know, whatever, sort of sitting there, looking at the watch.

Where is he? And he pops out you know, five, ten minutes after our appointed time, and he says, I'll never forget, he says, What are you doing here? And it was like I knew I was on the verge of leaving. So I So you had a little more little more bite in US.

Just a little bit more bite. And we said, Well, we're we're waiting to meet with you. We had a I think it was a 4:30 uh appointment. You requested that you wanted to speak to us about uh this initiative.

Oh, did I? Yes, you did. And then he said, Huh, who else is at the meeting? Dunno, it's your meeting at your request.

And he said, Well, I think we should have someone else. Okay. Well, can you go and get them? Okay, and it wandered off.

Another sort of ten minutes pass. This guy couldn't make the meeting, so we went in. And so it was like a setup here, he was sitting there, and he had his T his computer screen over here, so I could sort of peek around the edge of it. So I was sort of giving this sort of presentation, and you could absolutely tell zero interest.

He had absolutely no interest whatsoever, and I could see what was on his computer screen, and he was checking out a Trump golf course, and it was at that point I was like, fuck this. Yeah, I'm I'm I'm done. And I missed my flight because the meeting was New York Russia. Oh, and so I would actually say that is verging on the toxic.

Yeah, the lack of lack of respect, lack of respect, yeah, and it was a meeting at his request. Yeah, yeah. This is a culture that is completely anathema to who I am. I want nothing more to do with this whatsoever.

Yeah, for sure. Very cool. Well, that's probably a great, great story to end this on. All right, man.

Thank you. Neil, thank you so much. Delighted. Thank you.

And that's it for this episode of Consulting Uncensored with Neil McNamara. Want to join the conversation? Connect with Neil on LinkedIn to share your thoughts on today's episode and join a community of consulting professionals who want to cut through the DS. Thanks for listening.

There's a new episode every other Wednesday. We'll see you then.