Programme: Full Time MBA’26
Course Name: Organizational Behavior
Assignment Title: Individual Assignment OB- McKinsey’s learning
EUR Student ID Number: 757386
Student Name: AYUSH RITOLIA
1. Organisation
McKinsey & Company is a well-known global management consulting
firm with offices across the world. It advises major companies and
institutions on different business strategies. In this paper, I will focus
on McKinsey’s Private Equity (PE) practice in India, where I started my
professional career. I worked with McKinsey’s office in India for 3 years.
This division works closely with big investment firms, helping them
make decisions through commercial due diligence work. These projects
usually involve things like industry landscaping, company profiles,
growth potential, and macroeconomic trends. The work is very fast
paced, with teams of 5-6 consultants working on projects that last just
2-3 weeks. During these intense periods, long working hours—up to 12-
14 hours daily—are common. The PE clients are one of highest paying
clients for Mckinsey. Even though the job looks glamorous from the
outside, this high-pressure environment often leads to poor work-life
balance and increased stress levels within the team
2. Problem
PE as an industry is fast paced,
One of the most pressing issues in McKinsey’s Private Equity (PE)
consulting practice is the persistent challenge of poor work-life
balance. Due to the fast-paced nature of PE projects, consultants are
often working on short but extremely intensive projects with high
expectations on quality and turnaround times. Typically, consultants
work in teams of 5-6, dedicating 12-14 hours daily, sometimes even
longer during crunch periods. However, not all this time spent is
necessarily productive. Frequently, teams may invest long hours
pursuing a hypothesis or conducting deep research, only to later find
the insights irrelevant or unaligned with leadership’s shifting
perspective. In many cases, consultants find themselves working on
problems that haven’t been fully explored before, requiring them to
navigate ambiguity without a clear structure or direction. This
sometimes leads to cycles of rework when senior leaders or partners
propose new directions late into the project.
The problem is further aggravated by the changing attention spans of
employees in today’s world of social media. As one former consultant
from the PE practice put it:
“I mean, you sit in the same chair for 14 hours and half the time your
mind’s gone, like scrolling mentally. You’re grinding all day, but
sometimes the deck just gets scrapped next morning ‘cause a partner
wants a new direction.”
The physical toll is another serious concern. Long sitting hours have led
to chronic back issues, including lower back pain, slipped discs, and
neck stiffness, which were commonly discussed among consultants. In
fact, during my time, it was normal to hear complaints about
musculoskeletal problems, sleep disorders, and recurring headaches.
The lifestyle also affects consultants socially and personally, as many
struggle to maintain relationships outside work.
“Dude, after work, you don’t wanna talk to anyone. You’re wiped out. I
barely saw my friends, and my relationship took a hit ‘cause I’d come
home dead tired every single night.” Another ex-consultant mentioned
how fatigue and poor recovery cycles negatively affected their ability
to focus on personal health or even basic fitness routines.
A second major issue is a gradual reduction in motivation over time. PE
consulting projects often follow a similar pattern: industry landscaping,
company profiling, and market sizing, typically geared towards
supporting commercial due diligence. After a few years, many
consultants start feeling like order-takers. The excitement of learning
new industries gets replaced by the sense of becoming a generalist,
someone who is knowledgeable about multiple sectors but lacks deep
expertise in any single area. The nature of PE work often limits the
visibility of long-term impact since consultants rarely see how their
recommendations translate into real-world changes.
“It’s like, you’re shuffling decks and models, but you don’t really know
what happens to the company or people after that. Feels like you’re
building castles in the air sometimes,” said one consultant I spoke to.
The feeling of contributing to something meaningful starts to erode,
leading to reduced engagement and job satisfaction.
The third issue relates to the unique culture within McKinsey, especially
in PE projects, where there’s a subtle but significant fear of missing out
(FOMO) if one decides to exit the firm. The strong McKinsey brand
creates a sense of pride, but it can also make employees question their
worth outside the firm. Many internalize the idea that leaving such a
prestigious environment could be a step down. This culture often
masks hierarchical dynamics beneath the "flat structure" narrative.
While formally there are few rigid hierarchies, in reality, project
direction is heavily influenced by senior partners. Many consultants
feel that their ideas are often overruled or reshaped to align with
partner preferences, leaving them with limited psychological
empowerment.
“Yeah, they say no hierarchy but honestly, partner calls the shots. If
you push back on workload or suggest a new idea, it kinda vanishes
fast. And good luck talking about burnout in your review,” one
consultant shared candidly.
This atmosphere creates an internal dilemma: consultants are aware of
the personal sacrifices but fear reputational damage or career
stagnation if they raise concerns about workload or stress. As a result,
many stay silent, leading to long-term disengagement and a tolerance
for unsustainable work patterns.
3. Analysis
When I was working at McKinsey’s Private Equity (PE) practice, there
were these ongoing
issues that didn’t make full sense at first. But after diving into this idea
called Job Characteristics Theory (JCT), things kinda started
clicking. JCT basically looks at how the type of work you’re doing, how
much say you have in it, and how connected you feel to it, shapes how
motivated and satisfied you are at your job. It’s got these five key
things—variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and
feedback—and I could see gaps in almost all of them during my time
there.
Let’s start with variety. In the PE team, you’re often cycling through
the same playbook. Industry analysis, company profiles, and market
sizing—it’s like this loop. Sure, the sectors change, but the process
stays pretty much the same. A guy from my old team said once, “Feels
like we’re just plugging in new numbers, but we’re doing the same
puzzle every time.” After a while, that sameness hits hard, and people
start mentally checking out.
Task identity was another thing I noticed was missing. Projects are
split into smaller chunks and shared across team members. Because of
how short the projects are—two to three weeks—you’re rarely seeing
something through from start to finish. It’s just handing off bits and
pieces. One colleague told me, “It’s like working an assembly line but
with PowerPoint slides—you do your bit, then it’s outta your hands.”
Without that feeling of ownership, it’s hard to feel like your work really
counts.
Task significance also felt pretty low. We were building decks to help
clients with investment decisions, but once that deck went out, it was
radio silence. Did the client make the deal? Did it help someone’s
business? We never knew. One teammate told me, “I don’t even know
if the stuff we send ever sees the light of day or if it just sits in
someone’s inbox.” Without seeing the downstream impact, it’s easy to
feel like your work is just for show.
Autonomy wasn’t great either. Even though McKinsey says they don’t
have much hierarchy, PE projects don’t really give you that much
space to shape your own work. Partners usually steer the ship. The
team gathers research and pulls together insights, but the key calls?
That’s all senior leadership. A colleague mentioned, “Sure, we do the
legwork, but the partner's word is final, no matter what.” That makes it
feel like you’re just executing someone else’s vision.
Then there’s feedback, which was often rushed or missing. With
things moving at such a crazy pace, stuff would change last minute.
You could spend three days on a section just for it to be dropped when
the client or partner pivots. Sometimes you don’t even hear if what you
did worked or how you could’ve done it better.
These things together lead to people burning out. I’ve seen teammates
fighting headaches, back pain from sitting too long, and just general
fatigue. People would complain about struggling to stay healthy or
keep up socially outside of work. One guy said, “Man, I can’t remember
the last time I hit the gym or went out with friends without feeling
wiped.”
Reading further about JCT from other sources, like the stuff on AIHR,
made me realize that it’s not just about the tasks—it’s also how these
five things connect to bigger psychological needs. Like, when people
feel like their job is meaningful, that they’re responsible for the results,
and they can see the outcome of their work, they stay motivated. But
when those parts are missing, people just go through the motions.
Take companies like Spotify or Atlassian, for example. They use
these team models where small squads own projects end-to-end. They
get the freedom to decide how they solve problems and actually get to
see the impact of their work. A friend at Spotify told me, “We make the
calls, and we’re responsible for seeing it through—it’s more stressful
sometimes, but it feels like it matters more.” The ownership makes the
grind feel worthwhile.
Looking back at McKinsey PE through this lens, it’s clear the work
scored low across most of the JCT factors. Low variety, low control, no
closure on projects, and feedback that’s hit or miss. That’s probably
why folks were feeling drained even though, on paper, working there
looks super prestigious.
If they gave teams more space to own parts of the project or mixed
things up so people weren’t doing the same tasks over and over, it’d
probably boost morale and reduce burnout. And closing the feedback
loop so people actually see how their work lands would go a long way
too.
4. Recommendations
One of the biggest things McKinsey could do differently in their PE
practice is shake up how teams are staffed and the roles people play
on each project. Right now, folks keep doing the same set of tasks—
industry analysis, market sizing, competitor benchmarking. Feels like
copy-paste work after a point. So first thing, they should rotate people
into different roles across projects. Like, one person can do analytics
this time and next project maybe own the client story or even lead a
small module. This small change can help consultants pick up more
variety in their day-to-day work and stop them from feeling stuck in
one narrow skill set.
One guy I spoke to told me, “Boss, after few months, you feel like
robot only. Every day same Excel, same PowerPoint. Nothing new to
learn.” By mixing things up, McKinsey can make sure people stay
sharper and more motivated.
Next, they should create more chances for consultants to own a full
piece of work—like a full stream of a project. This is all about task
identity. Instead of doing just research and handing it over, let
someone take charge of a full industry deep dive or customer analysis
from start to end. Let them present it to the partner and even join
client calls. Right now, most juniors only work on parts, so they don’t
feel like they’ve built something that is fully theirs.
Ironically, McKinsey itself, in its own research, talks about how giving
employees clear ownership over tasks leads to stronger results and
higher engagement. But in its own PE space, that’s missing. In fact,
one senior associate mentioned in a casual chat, “My EM works me
work so much but at the end you’re just adding pages to a deck which
somebody else will present.”
The next recommendation is about task significance. Right now,
consultants don’t see how their work makes a difference after the
handover to the client. So McKinsey could set up something simple but
meaningful like a project feedback loop from clients. After project
delivery, clients can share how the analysis helped them, what
decisions they made, and what worked or didn’t. This isn’t just to boost
morale, it helps people understand that their work isn’t just slides—it
has an impact on big deals and companies’ futures.
At companies like Salesforce, project teams follow up with internal
and external clients to understand the effect of their work. My friend at
Salesforce told me, “We close every project by asking, ‘So what did
this change for you?’ It helps us connect the dots between our work
and business impact.” McKinsey could easily bring in such a practice.
When it comes to autonomy, the needle needs to move too. Even
though they say there’s no hierarchy, most of the time partners make
final calls. I think teams should be given more room to make certain
decisions. For example, on PE projects, junior and mid-level consultants
could be given freedom to decide on research direction, how to test a
hypothesis, or even run client discussions without waiting for partner
approval on every step.
One person told me, “We’re smart people but still waiting for partner’s
‘haan’ before making small calls—it’s frustrating sometimes.” Giving
teams more ownership at a project level can help people feel trusted
and capable. Plus, research—including McKinsey’s own reports—says
when people have autonomy, they become more creative and
committed.
Feedback is another area where a bold change can help. McKinsey
could put in place a standard where every project ends with a full
feedback session. This should be done within 2 days of project
completion, while it’s still fresh. And feedback shouldn’t just come from
partners; there should be input from peers, team leads, and maybe
even clients.
At Google, they run something called “Project Post-Mortems” where
teams sit together, discuss what went right, what didn’t, and share
feedback openly without fear of judgment. This culture has helped
Google teams continuously improve. If McKinsey adopted even a
version of this, it could make the learning curve much steeper and help
people feel like their efforts are seen and valued.
Finally, I think McKinsey should trial a new “project closure ritual.” This
could be a team-wide debrief that also connects with the client’s
outcome. Did the client act on our recommendations? Did it lead to a
successful investment? Did the client pass on the deal? Whatever
happened, bringing the team into that loop gives them closure and
meaning.
A friend who worked at Zomato in their strategy team mentioned,
“Every time we finished a project, we’d sit together and talk about
what happened—the full story, good or bad. It helped us connect to the
result, not just the project.” It helped them feel more connected to
results, not just the process.
What’s funny is that McKinsey’s own report on value builders says
organizations fail when employees lack ownership, don’t see the
purpose behind their work, or don’t feel like they have a say. Yet, within
the PE practice itself, these are the exact gaps people experience.
I know McKinsey is a fast-moving place with demanding clients, but if
these steps are put in place, they’d touch on nearly every weak spot
highlighted by Job Characteristics Theory—whether it’s variety,
identity, autonomy, or feedback.
Sure, it’s not an overnight fix. McKinsey would need to train partners to
delegate more and build a feedback culture across project teams. But if
they take this leap, I think PE consultants would feel more motivated,
healthier, and stick around longer.
Also, the firm could track key indicators like project satisfaction scores,
retention rates, and even see if project outcomes improve once teams
feel more empowered.
End of the day, these changes wouldn’t just make life better for
consultants—they could also make McKinsey PE teams more effective
and trusted by clients in the long run.
