Veteran’s Day In PwC Advisory: Say Auf Wiedersehen
By Francine • Nov 2nd, 2009 • Category: Latest, Pure Content
I’ve just received word: There was a PwC Advisory partners emergency conference call tonight announcing upcoming involuntary staff reductions.
(This time the source is impeccable.)
New US Advisory Leader, Dana McIlwain laid out the bad news: The time has come to cut. Average utilization is hovering at 69%. Cash collections are millions short. Campus recruiting for Advisory has been stopped cold. Business sucks and then there’s the 800+ BearingPoint folks to absorb.
On November 11th the rank and file partners, fortified after training and coaching by HR via a webcast in the next few days, will chop 300+ professionals from PwC Advisory, at all levels, all geographies, all practices. Most have already seen the writing on the wall via forced ranking. You are already on a “list” and I’m not talking a fun Twitter one. You may be fighting it, thinking you can survive if you just find a project to take you, somewhere, and may even have been encouraged to go looking, just to be told, “Sorry, wrong number.”
Because that’s the way it works at PwC. After putting themselves on a pedestal, telling the press and their peers at other firms they were better than everyone else, they’ve finally acknowledged that they have no idea how to fix the systemic problems in the practice, don’t know who will fix them, and don’t know when they will get fixed. No amount of prancing around like pompous peacocks will change the fact no one is buying their act right now.
It can’t help that their Health Care Advisory practice was royally punked by Report-Gate. I never got an answer back from the PwC PR folks as to who specifically had the bright idea to whore themselves out for a few bucks to the insurance industry’s anti-reform lobby. This is the big time now and PwC was toast before the graphics department was done printing out those shiny booklets for the next conference.
It seems that none of the BearingPoint transfers-in will be cut. That would be an admission of fault for a colossal, strategic mistake of going long systems integration consulting during one of the biggest corporate cost cutting periods in my more than twenty-five years of professional life.
And it looks like no partners will be part of the RIF parade, for now. At least at PwC, they’re reducing those numbers by attrition instead - disgusted, demoralized, and defeated by massive cuts in compensation and shifting of accounts and responsibilities. All in the name of preserving the remaining spoils for the few at the top of the pyramid. Just walk away with tails between your legs, fellas, and be glad you had the supreme privilege of working for Price, Waterhouse, Coopers, or Lybrand during your last 15-25 year career. Oh, and don’t tell anyone. It would embarrass both of us and no one would be better for it. There’s lots of CFO jobs around. You may have to move your family to North Dakota…
Don’t think this is the last of of the cuts at PwC. Once the rich “sons of a gun” at the top - more on that later in the week, including actual compensation figures - get a taste of blood, it’s easier and easier to justify anything to save their own skins.
They’ve done it before. They have the playbook.
Let’s see how the PR guys spin this one…
Inside Photo Credit
Main Photo Credit
Francine is
Email this author | All posts by Francine
![[Google]]( http://retheauditors.com/wp-content/plugins/easy-adsenser/google-light.gif)
Francine McKenna (@retheauditors) has more than twenty years of experience in consulting and professional services environment including tenure both in the US and abroad at PwC, KPMG/BearingPoint, JP Morgan and Jefferson Wells/Manpower. She is a freelance writer and a frequent speaker in and out of the accounting/audit world. For more info, check my About page.
While I appreciate your level of interest in Big 4, and PwC namely, I am perplexed by how much time you spend on this. While some of the information may be accurate, much of it is speculative and misinformed. You may think you’re providing news and sharing insight, but you are actually creating panic and undo stress for people who need not be concerned. Lastly I find your or your editor’s choice of images distasteful and inconsistent with what you may think you’re providing for people. I recommend rechecking your source or more important challenging his/her personal motivation. On one postive note, the writing is at time humorous and can’t help but chuckle at the jabs.
@Confused
Not sure where the perplexity comes from. I’ve been doing this for three years. The blog, and my writing in general, has a wide readership, inside and outside the industry, and fills a void left by the ever declining, really more or less non-existent, coverage of the firms as an industry by the main stream media. It serves readers, so much so that I’v been quoted extensively and asked to write for those same media organizations. In the end it’s my opinion, my analysis, and sometimes my speculation and hypothesis.
Take it or leave it.
” creating panic and undo stress for people who need not be concerned…” I think that the cuts (and the lawsuits and strategic mistakes…) that all the firms have made over the last three years leave many with good reason to be stressed and concerned and to crave information, from anywhere , that tells them the truth about their career, the firms and the choices they have. If you could man my phones and email for a week, you might hear it in their voice, feel it in the words they use to convey their disappointment, dismay, and in some cases desperation because their dreams have been crushed. And then there’s the alumni of the firms who are now customers… And then there’s the refugees here in Chicago from Arthur Andersen, not only former employees/partners but vendors and other stakeholders who see a ghost every time there’s a big lawsuit or fraud case that threatens the firms legally or financially.
I know my sources and their motivations. They are the same as those of the thousands that comment on the blog and to me personally off line - they are trying to help others see the firms and their leadership for what they are: profit making organizations led by self-interested men with feet of clay.
Glad you think I’m humorous at times but the humor is to amuse myself first and then to try to soften the blow, make it easier, for readers to digest the bitter pill of disillusionment. It’s kind of like wrapping my Rottweiler’s medicine in a a piece of filet. Before she knows it, she’s taken the pill and on her way to feeling better. As far as my choice of visuals, well, again, they amuse me. I enjoy the process of choosing just the right evocative image or music. Some of it is just an expression of my own interests and tastes. Makes it easier sometimes for me, too, to write what I know will be difficult for others to take.
Francine
The Big Four have long been riding the gravy train of unchecked action and unquestioned decision making. Why is this blog here? Because it’s needed. Because for too long corporate cultures that have been sick on the inside are allowed to continue on without any checks. Because companies like this gave firms they should have been auditing, and in turn helping them to run a responsible business, a free pass. And then when the slip shod job they’ve done is discovered, they audit the target firm into the ground, pin them down with costs and reviews, such that no questions of the terrible job the auditor was doing right along remains.
Many of the big four are as culpable as other Wall Street firms in the current financial crisis. And it looks like at least one of them is going to die for it.
The gravy train has pulled into the station.
One day a Ph.D. candidate in Organizational Psych may do a post-mortem on the Big 4 during the period that ran from SOX (2002) through, say 2010. I foresee lots of tables and graphs, lots of quant analysis. One of the things I look forward to learning is how the total number of partnerships is determined. Is it based on revenue, on staff headcount, or what? Because I’m wondering how PwC (or another firm) can cut so many staff heads without touching the partner heads? Remember, in Advisory revenue is variable based on hours billed, not fixed as in Assurance.
Let’s say average utilization is 69% — some are closer to 100% but others are down in the high 30’s or mid-40’s. So you RIF all the lower utilized staff and you are trading away your revenue in the name of cost cuts. Average billing rate of $300 x 2080 x 40% = $250,000 of lost revenue per head cut x 300 heads = $75 MILLION of lost revenue. Sure you are cutting labor & fringe costs, but not as much as you are cutting future revenue.
So I’m wondering how PwC can give up in the neighborhood of $75 million or so, and hold partner headcount constant? I’m feeling bad for all those partners who are seeing their unit values crash.
Fran, I completely agree with you that the motivation has to be preserving compensation at the top of the pyramid, since the “rank and file” partners would seem to be taking it in the shorts. Not sure which is worse, to be laid off and have to look for work, or to be locked into a partnership agreement and see your compensation fall … with nothing to be done about it.
Dang. Bad times.
– Tenacious T.
@TT
The partner numbers are actually going down everywhere, but in different ways . Stay tuned for my post tomorrow @Going_Concern about partner terminations/attrition/forced out activities.No body is locked into anything anymore… That’s a smaller and smaller percentage of “partners” at all the firms, and virtually non-existent at the next tier firms.
Then Thursday I’ll be writing back on my blog about partner compensation, specifically at PwC.
Francine
@TT - don’t know about PwC, or anything beyond my particular practice. But think about the following:
1) more cuts were made at the director level than anywhere else
2) many partners were dismissed - rather quietly though
3) if you have 25 people averaging 60% utilized vs. 20 people at 100% what revenue are you losing by spreading their low utilization across the others
4) we have not observed that people with low utilization are by definition the ones who are let go — low utilization will be targetted for those who have low utilization for reasons such as (i) skillset is no longer applicable to the changing business needs, or (ii) performance is such that managers/directors select others who are perceived as performing better.
My experience — those that remain (and only 1 was laid off, and 2 were let go for performance issues — many others left due to attrition… in my office/practice) are mostly near 100% with some at higher numbers. But that is due to attrition and changing business needs. The skill set we need more of now is not the same as it was a year ago — so people with those skills (nationwide) are overbooked… while others are at 80-90%. We will be hiring, took on new hires recently as well and are looking to hire more… but the profile of our new hires has changed.
I am always curious about self acclaimed writers, teachers, experts and sorts who convince themselves they have either a duty or responsibility to an imaginary fan base. I think at times you have news to share about the industry or big 4 firms that are useful, but most of the time the debth of your insight is over shadowed by how personal your point of views are about the firms and its leadership. I read the blogs at times and wonder if it is time for you to move on?
@ 7 Anonymous
Now you’re being funny.
Francine
It’s official. Fran, you were 100% correct. I can’t verify the number of layoffs you claimed but I can verify that layoffs are in fact going on at PwC. Today, in an east coast office I belong to, a few people got the Partner meetig invite that pretty much means they are getting laid off and I’m sure there are more to come that I just haven’t heard about yet. Folks, this is a reality so give Fran the acknowledgment she deserves.
@9
I hate being right about these kinds of things.
Thanks for reminding me of the sure sign: The unplanned partner meeting invite.
Francine
PS: PwC folks, you’re welcome to connect with me on Linked In.
Yes, it’s true. Meeting tomorrow with Partner and HR. I can’t wait to hear their rational and how I would be a “better fit” elsewhere…
Anony @ 6 –
My assumption, right or wrong, was that the 20 100% utilized people would be 100% utilized regardless of what happened to the 5 who were laid off, because — as you point out — people are not fungible and skillsets vary.
But I’m not going to debate with you. If you want to be taken seriously (by me at least) you need to quit posting as Anonymous. The only difference between posting with a made-up name (e.g., Tenacious Truman) and Anonymous is that there’s accountability for one’s posts.
– Tenacious T.
i just got the unplanned partner invite. guess i’m a goner!!!!! i’ll let you know tomorrow if it’s true….
For those at PwC who were paying attention, this has been evident for many months. Why did all of the other Big 4 have mass layoffs and PwC was spared? Why were certain individuals that were deemded low performers for many years let go after the annual review process when in previous years they would have been retained? SOX delayed the inevitable for a firm where many of the salesman aren’t really salesman and a spiderweb of administration and overhead has handcuffed those who are.
What is hysterical is that PwC tried to execute this “charade” of “we’re not laying off people like the other Big Four.” They did it all right, and will continue to do so throughout the rest of this year, but tried to do it “under the radar.”
The other interesting news is that PwC conducted a survey a few months back with their clients / potential clients and were voted “most arrogant” of all the Big Four. While not a surprise, the Advisory leadership was aghast in amazement.
The BearingPoint transaction was lauded for all the revenue it brought - but now that these engagements are either closing or being terminated, it’s time to get those BP folks to work - not an easy task for leadership who hasn’t had an executable strategy for years.
MUCH unrest at the Partner level, with a substantial percentage having to give back shares. Every “man” for himself. They are imploding under current leadership.
Anony @ 14 –
Yes, this has been coming for a while. But to post that PwC was “spared” from layoffs is misleading. PwC has, in fact, been laying off staff one-by-one, quietly, over the past 18 months; and even before that PwC Advisory separated more than 100 Directors in late 2007.
Anyway, to my way of thinking the problem isn’t that PwC didn’t have good salesmen, it has been that the expectations have been too high. One can’t sell what the market doesn’t want to buy.
In my view.
– Tenacious T.
I got the invite too. Will report back tomorrow.
@6 - to take your point 3 a little further… the firms don’t pay overtime. So the excess work can just be done by making everyone who remains work at over 100% utilization. Revenue stays the same, costs go down, partner profit up. I guarantee that’s the math the firms use.
I can confirm this is true, the partners are in a frenzy, I’m sure there will be more to come, for a firm that was so proud about no layoffs and how the lack of compensation this past year will save jobs..I can’t believe they are going to do this now…I wonder how they will get around this.
For you PWCers with the dreaded invite - I’m sorry to hear that, and I wish you the best of luck. I hope you snatch up good positions in corporate as they slowly reappear on the market.
TT@16 - so true about unrealistic expectations. At D&T - I believe it was 2007 - we had the “not a good year” speech during year end discussions because although we had double-digit revenue growth - I want to say 12-13% - we had “planned” on closer to 17% based on agressive targets after 2006. That sounded ludicrous even before the market tanked, and is just asinine in retrospect.
@18 - What if you layoff enough people that when the remaining people are all 100% chargeable, they still can’t pull in as much revenue as the pre-layoff amount. I foresee that happening to my former group. Oh, well. I’m glad I’m not a partner. . . because . . . I’m on a boat!!
Announcement from Moritz this evening is 275 is the number to go.
@Coach
The number mentioned on the conference call led by McIlwain Monday night was 325.
We’ll see.
Francine
Francine, which pwc partner are you sleeping with to get this “inside info”? Sounds to me like you’re full of it.
@lolz
If you read anything I write you’d know that PwC partners are definitely not my type. LOL
Francine
It’s a wonder this business is still around. They hire a bunch of new hires into Advisory, with no skills, and no desire to do any of the services we offer, but cut a 3rd year associate because he’s not clawing his way to the top. What really pisses me off is, they don’t tell any of the directors/managers that they plan on cutting their staff, and sold projects will not be delayed, current projects will be thrown into chaos. And then we are left with people who can’t do the job, so we have to focus on getting them up to speed, which takes away from time I should be selling to clients.
If PwC sold stock, I would short it! And I would short it big! Let the death spiral begin.
Francine - Current Pwc Director here in another line of service. I can only tell you that my Advisory friends are “freaking out” by what has been published by you. You have definitely made your mark with this posting. The level of unrest that you have caused should make you proud. One of my friends told me last night that he heard that one of the Advisory Directors is so stressed out that he was talking about taking his life if he loses his job. If that happens, the sky is the limit for you and your little blog!
I am not a complete PwC clone who thinks that we do no wrong, but for you to make the point that all the partners are money grabbing aholes is completely baseless and shows how little you really know about the profession and the people that run the organizations. There are very few of them that do not show empathy and genuine care for the people..yes there are the occasional few that make me cringe, but they are really the exception rather than the rule. What I have learned over the past couple of days of reading your blog is that someone, somewhere pissed you off and your goal is to make everyone as miserable as you. The fact is that PwC is no different than many organizations and I am sure the Advisory leadership is spending countless hours making sure they treat any affected individuals with care. What you have done is make everyone feel unease and for that you are no better than the paparazzi looking to make a splash and get your 15 minutes of fame. I hope you are happy.
Had you let this RIF run its normal course, it would have been done confidentially and all affected parties would be notified on the same day and only those impacted would have the stress. But you like to cause unrest and panic…as it is obviously what drives you. You were like a little kid announcing this on your blog Tuesday morning….”look at what I know….I’m am so important!”
I am sure you will come back with some pithy little response to my entry…trying to laugh it off. But the fact remains that you have done harm to so many people and their families that any response you could come up with is not worth the internet space that you will take up.
Let’s revisit PwC’s “strategy” over the years. Sell of the consulting practice, “distinguish” itself from others by saying, “We don’t do SAP or Oracle. . .” Roll tape 3 years forward, AFTER the non-compete with IBM. Ohhhhhhhhhh, we do SAP, we do Oracle integration/implementation. (We just don’t do it as well or often because we had to BUY a bunch of people from IBM, Entology, etc. and overpay and have almost nothing to speak of for over 2 years.)
Last year, the “leader” Carter Pate had the gall to suggest it wasn’t a failed “strategy” on Pujadas’ part, it was poor execution by the hundreds of Partners and Directors and he expected 15% growth from everyone! Therefore, I can only imagine that these same Partners and Directors must have executed EXCEEDINGLY badly because surely Pujadas’ dead on strategy certainly didn’t fail 2 years in a row.
Director has it right, given the leadership of Pujadas, McIlwain, Browning, Koehneman, the death spiral has just begun. New staff billing rates are almost $200 per hour, and given the worst economy in 70 years, PwC had the audacity to try to raise rates last year! Carter Pate continually lambasted people (after a near global financial collapse) that falling RPH was not acceptable. Lots of Partners were hoping McCain would win the Presidency - so Carter Pate would leave the firm! Now they’re just waiting to cash out ASAP. . .
Francine,
I dont really understand the general attitude of your article. You seem to be relishing an event that will put people with families out of a job.
Auf Wiedersehen?? A firing squad?? If you have an issue with PwC the Company, so be it, but whats the reason for all the insenitivity on what could be an awful time for a large number of people?
If I was one of the people in front of the firing squad and I read your article, I would hunt you down
@John @PwC Insider
I don’t relish having to give bad news. But when one of your own gives me that information in advance, I believe it’s important to give people information so they can plan. If anyone is “freaking out”, staff or a Partner that has to give bad news, that says they were woefully unprepared, had very little understanidng of how the business really works, do not really know their leadership, and need to get their head out of the sand, their tears dried, and figure out what’s next for them.
Yes, it can feel like your world has shattered up around you. But you can displace that feeling in an instant by not dwelling on it and taking action. Waiting to see what someone tells you to do, what advice they give you when they have a vested interest in you going away quietly, buying whatever sob story they give you, including that you were not a fit, is a passive and weak postion that will not serve you well in this environment.
So, think what you will about me and my motives. The motivation came from one of your own who is much wiser and much more knowledgeable about what’s going on and felt very strongly that people needed to wake up and smell the coffee, however bitter it was. You need to know so you can make the right decisions. That has always been my poilcy on this blog and will continue to be. To PwC, who is now having to address this discomfort amongst their staff who thought they were better than everyone else, I can only respond, “Welcome to the club.”
And @PwCInsider - I have never painted all PwC, or all Big 4, partners with the same brush. Some of my best friends are partners in the firms. In fact, you must have missed my piece yesterday at Goingconcern.com where I strongly sympathize with their lot. But many partners are really just employees themselves, powerless order-takers, who may have strong technical expertise, but have sold their soul for what they see as the ultimate prize. Very few will get anything like what they could get if they worked for their clients. Or maybe not. If they would rather sit back and coast, with a sense of entitlement for making it to the bottom rung of another very complicated, political, and large bureaucracy, well then, so be it.
Francine
PS. Some have called or written on an individual basis and asked me about their situation. I am ready to respond to anyone on a confidential basis. My motivation is to empower you to choose what’s right for you and your family, including sticking with your firm if that makes sense.
And if anyone wants to blame the messenger instead, they’ll have to get past my Rottweiler.
Francine:
“Auf Wiedersehen”, “Rottweiler”, etc. I think I know what your issue is…
@FranSuks
Actually, I was thinking of using “Sayonara.” And I use Spanish too much since it’s my second language. Really no hidden agenda on that other than the tie in with Veteran’s Day, which used to be called Armistice Day. Look it up.
Francine
Your articles strike me at bitter…..move on and live on.
bewegen Sie sich mit Ihrem Leben - translate this
I actually do not work at PwC.
And I dont have any issues about you reporting on this, so not really blaming the messenger here.
My question was simply how you like it, if this was the worst day of your life due to losing your job, and you found out about it through an article featuring a firing squad??
I just don’t get it.
Wow, the PWc people are really bitter here. Guys, take it easy. Did you ever read the thousands’ comments about Uncle D’s layoff? Welcome to the real world, my friends. I am happy to note that PWc is no better than Deloitte. It is your turn now.
And come on, be easy with Francine. She is just the messenger here. We Deloitte people only gave the finger to our leaders.
@John
First it’s not the worst day of your life. If you take the personal out of it, it goes much better. Not easy. The stupidity of leading people on so long is frustrating, but you can overcome it. It can be bad, but you’ll get over it. And you will be better for it.
You will find out about your situation from your “boss.” Is that, in PwC’s case, a “Coach”, a “Relationship Partner” some poor designated partner who has to do the dirty work, or some poor HR person who goes through the process like a robot and makes you feel that you have no say or choices in the matter?
Reread what’s been written here before about how to handle those meetings. Don’t sign anything you haven’t read. The higher up you are or if you have an employment agreement, even if it’s terms in your original offer letter you signed about severance in the event of a termination “not for cause,” then consult with an attorney. If you are a member of a protected class - woman, pregnant, over 40, a minority, etc or all of the above - there are special terms and conditons that apply. Do not be hustled out like cattle.
If necessary, call or email me and I can provide you with names of appropriate counsel.
I am not going to apologize for my choice of images. I’m making a point. A strong one. Be prepared. It would be uncharacteristic of me to do otherwise.
Francine
Francine - congratulations. The level of negative commenting correlates with increased readership, and in your case, confirms you’ve struck a nerve with the right people. Not that most of the new commenters are adding to the discussion, but hopefully they’ll at least buy some books from the FT advertisement while they’re stopping by.
Just got the news that it is official. One down in Texas already. I know of 2 more in my office that have the meeting in a few hours. What I’ve heard is that people are being informed today, and have until the 20th to wrap up projects and stuff. At least they are not being escorted out by security today.
To everyone who is upset about the pictures etc on this blog: Get over it. Yes it sucks to find out about getting fired from a blog. Maybe, just maybe, PwC should have been the one to tell us. That would have been the best way. But instead they wanted to be sneaky about it. I say big thanks to Francine, at least through her some people are getting advanced notice and have a couple hours to prepare themselves. I know I appreciate it!
Francine, while I can appreciate your desire to keep your collegues at PwC informed about what you think is coming, your message doesn’t have the tone of one who’s really looking out for her own. Your message reads like one from a disgruntled employee with an ax to grind — almost like you’re enjoying this unfortunate situation. What’s the likelihood you’re one being lined up before the firing squad?
Was laid off from PwC at the end of Sept. It was a preceded by a “touch base” invite with the Partner. There are other jobs out there everyone - leaving PwC is not the end of the world.
With every blog I am relieved you are not with PwC anymore. Its been sometime….might you want to move on?
PWCinsider @27 says:
“One of my friends told me last night that he heard that one of the Advisory Directors is so stressed out that he was talking about taking his life if he loses his job. If that happens, the sky is the limit for you and your little blog! ”
You’re pathetic dude. Just b/c FM wants to inform the public of event that will be initiated by one of your own, you’re blaming her for it. How would it be any different if that helpless director friend finds out the news from someone else. By the way, the fact that the director will take his life if he gets the boot is a sad indication of his level of maturity, both as a professional and a person, in how he handles life situations. (I’m assuming this director is a grown adult right, I mean, he’s not 18. Is he?). Also as FM said, even if layoffs take place and it impacts you or your colleagues doesn’t mean it’s the end of their existence. In fact, as many have posted on other layoff blogs here, it could be start of a happier beginning.
FM, don’t let these bozo clowns stop you from doing what you’re doing. You’re providing a valuable service to all of us by keeping us informed of what’s really going on - not only within the firms, but in the profession at large. Doesn’t seem like corruption, greed, unfairness, and nontransparency will take a break anytime soon so why should you?
Folks, don’t shoot the messenger. You’re stupid if your realization is less than 60%, sales are less than $1 million, and you don’t “own a client, a solution or a market.” PwC is a legal Ponzi scheme.
You’re either a Partner or you’re not - plain and simple. Fewer and fewer partners are out their building relationships, coming up with new ideas. Look around!!!
You’ve either got a line on the code as engagement partner, director, etc., or you’re out. Partners don’t mentor any more, they align with people who’ll make them money so their shares will increase in value. This “distinctive people experience” is what several hundred will experience now, and several hundred experienced since ARC meetings last Spring, and several hundred more will experience next ARC.
Unless you’re in a new / growing practice, like cost reduction, or Healthcare IT, you’re at risk.
You need to IMMEDIATELY network with friends, clients, leverage whatever relationships and friendships you have. It’s going to suck trying to find a job during the holiday season, but hopefully the market will continue to improve, albeit gradually. Be prepared for sticker shock in terms of salary when you look in private industry.
What I think is hysterical is that this “little” blog has all the PwC Advisory Partners in a tizzy! Guess the Pulse survey scores will go to crap - or maybe they took the survey in October, and terminations in November. Hmmmmmmmmmm, that would be ONE strategic move they would make!
Don’t believe the pablum. PwC is a cold, harsh place to work - you find out who your friends are after you leave, and even after 7 years, the list of people who try to help, rather than give the standard “Let me know if there’s anything I can do to help.” can be counted with thumbs. Get your severance, be prepared to wait 10 weeks for your last expense check, and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out! Distinctive!!!
Multiple corporations announced far more substantial layoffs today. [Microsoft-800; GM-7,000; Johnson & Johnson-7,000]. To suggest you wrote this petty, bnoxious piece as though you are the one looking out for the 300 people losing thier job is disingenuous. The news gave you the ammunition to grind your axe a little more. Christmas came early for you this year.
Having worked both at PwC and Deloitte, I was amazed how long PwC postponed their lay-offs. Deloitte did not hesitate to sack folks to keep the year-end bonuses intact. At least the partners at PwC tried other alternatives prior to lay-offs. Lay-offs at Deloitte have been happening across all practices since September of 2008. This shouldn’t have been a surprise.
PWC employees work p 12 hour days sometimes 7 days a week. They have been asked time and time again for complete loyalty to the firm. And now, when times are tough for all of us, the company is eliminating some of the hardest working people. Hypocracy is an understatement.
I got a whiff that I dodged the cut. And honestly, I feel cheated. I want my severance and an excuse to leave this place on good terms.
@45
This blog is about the business of the Big 4 audit firms. It’s not about “layoffs” in general, or finance in general, or even professional services in general. I do not typically write about public companies except as it relates to their auditors and the business of the firms. This is likely the only place you will see this news because PwC will likely not put out a press release. (Although I strongly encourage them to do so.) The only press releases that have been issued during the time I’ve been writing this blog regarding all the cuts at the firms is the first big “all in one” cut of 900 + in August of last year by Deloitte (then they stopped issuing any announcement even as they continued to cut) and one by KPMG referring to a few hundred folks later that fall.
Transparency on the part of the firms, especially to acknowledge the cuts as business related and to take away the unfair stigma of mass cuts being performance related at this point, would be a great service to the staff. Their clients admitted when their forecasts were off, when they over hired, when they lost customers, when business conditions are negative. The Big 4 firms should, too.
Francine
“Their clients admitted when their forecasts were off, when they over hired, when they lost customers, when business conditions are negative. The Big 4 firms should, too.”
Clients are publicly traded, PwC is not.
@50
Obviously. And so they can hide behind a cloak of secrecy with no demand by even regulators for more info, in spite of their claims of being too poor to pay “catastrophic” litigation claims. Interestingly, the US firm compares very unfavorably to many others in their network when it comes to transparency, accountability, honesty with their employees and their own “partners.” In the UK, audit firms issue independently audited, IFRS-basis financial statements, including salary info and detailed metrics.
Barking up wrong tree. Go back and read some more and then you’ll have context.
Francine
@FM - John wasn’t let go — read his/her post.
@52 Yes, I realize that. He is not even PwC. I was directing my comment to his statement beginning, “how would you like if…” My answer is directed at the folks he thinks he is speaking for.
Francine
Everyone needs to stop picking on FM for the blog that she posted… this information is crucial and we all deserve to know.. as a PwC employee I want to know what is going on… if she wouldn’t have posted it some partner would have told someoen and that persone would have told someone and it would have trickled down at least by her posting it we all have an idea and can prepare for the worst….
52 - eagerly awaiting your witty response to 53.
You all need to keep your day jobs if you have any… this is pathetic. I feel like we are back in highschool, ratting someone out, or playing that famous telephone game. I guess this blog served its purpose, which was trying to read something entertaining while popping my zit. Thanks!
Just as an FYI, 300 people is about .7% of the U.S. PwC workforce and it is no different then some other multinational closing one office in one city. While I can’t speak for all, at least in my group at PwC we are tired of carrying around dead weight. Most of the underperformers in my group that are being coached out are legitimately being fired for performance reasons, not a RIF in disguise. They either aren’t performing to expectations (have a bad rep for poor work), are underutilized (which is usually directed by their past performance), aren’t pursuing their CPA or are just generally checked/burnt out. It is time for them to move along. At this point the group is finally starting to shape up as people slowly leave. I don’t think there is anything wrong with letting people go that aren’t meeting performance expectations. As a final note, in the internal communications that have come through yes the firm has said they aren’t using a strategy of layoffs, but they never said there would never be any of them. I applaud them for trying to keep the staff, but in business things change and companies react, it’s the only way to survive. (or you could go out like GM)
Now where’s the next juicy lawsuit so you can again try to predict the end of all accounting firms around the world? Still waiting for that one… Maybe next time advertising revenue is getting low?
Everyone pissed at FM are the same people who pull the blindside with the “Catch up”, “Update”, “Busy Season Schedule” meeting planner and want to fire (or “RIF” - lol) people hoping that they aren’t prepared so that they can sign the severance before they have time to think and don’t make things uncomfortable.
Thanks for this blog, Francine
Someone just tried to post a comment that broke all the rules and so it was deleted.
1) Strictly personal attack (on me or anyone else, especially if it’s not someone who is a public figure or leader of the firm.)
2) Facts are clearly wrong. (Although if it’s not about me, I may print and then correct the writer. But I have no motivation to publish incorrect facts about myself.)
3) Poor spelling or cursing. (Although I am more tolerant of this if an interesting point is made.)
Some of you may have forgotten or never fully realized that this is my blog, I moderate all comments, and I decide what gets posted. Criticism of the content of a post, correction of facts and honest disagreement with me or each other is encouraged. That’s why I’m answering those back. Ad hominem attacks won’t be tolerated. Funny it’s pretty much only the PwC folks that do that…
Francine
i was laid off today …. i wonder how many others are out there?!!!
Confirmed. I was axed today and appreciated the advanced notice from the blog so I could bring in an extra bag this morning to take things home.
Folks, the blog is like listening to the weather forecast the night before…….
@60 and 61
Glad this could help in some small way. Good luck. Be sure to connect on Linked In.
Francine
@55 — was never even trying to be witty… sorry I’m still not trying to be witty here. Just found @FM’s post confusing and now I find her clarification perfectly acceptable.
As for the rest — it is interesting, when D&T was hot into layoffs all D&T employees (most all) laid off or not came out guns blazing against D&T. But PwC folk include a lot more defending the firm. FM - didn’t you once say that PwC people were strangely silent on this blog and you thought they were brainwashed into it — or something like that?
As for @55 — again there is no wit here — I just think it was an interesting observation FM had and the response of PwC folk today is quite intriguing.
@63
I have said many times before that PwC folks are the least participative in terms of comments, at least based on identifying your firm or reacting to posts about your firm. (I will let you all tell me why you think that is. )
However, keep in mind, I get lots of calls and emails too. And if you looked at my Linked In connections you would see plenty of PwC professionals both active and alumni that consider me a useful connection. I know and continue to know the most about PwC because I worked there most recently and did make some friends. (Ha) Those people and new friends from the firm I’ve made since continue to be extrmenly supportive of my efforts and, in this case and others, provide me with many updates, tips, and answers to my questions so I can stay current. Finally, if I were to look at my traffic, the company with the most hits in three years, from their firm network no less, is PwC. They may not say much but they are out there and clearly very interested in what I’m writing. I could care less why or if any of them in particular disagrees.
My satisfaction comes from the one-on-one conversations I have with those that help me and those that feel they are being helped.
They make my day on a daily basis.
Francine
Were PwC not a great environment with smart people and great clients, people would not be as concerned or angry to not be part of it. Life has its ups and downs and I wish for those who may be going through any hardship during this tough economic times, hope, faith and a litttle luck. That hope is extended to anyone facing a loss of a job or lost a job recently. Stay hopeful.
Two senior mangers laid off this week. Lots of people within the last month already have or are thinking about leaving.
Thanks for the info FM. Appreciate the info and the comments they bring.
got fired today. f
The Problem is Francine isnt giving any real facts. She is just writing about what she thinks is going to happen. She does not work at PWC, she doesnt have any real info. Noone knows if what she says is true or not and if it is true, how many people are going to be laid off. You say 300+ but noone on here knows the truth. And if they did lay off 300 people out of the 30,000+ employees they have im sure they did everything possible to try and keep everyone they could. People need to realize this is a bad economy, there are going to be layoffs everywhere and you need to save money when you can and be ready if it does happen to you.
Two people in NYC (one an Associate, another a Director) were offered a shot to move to WFP (wahsington federal practice) to avoid the cut.
Yay deficit!
@sadtosee
If you say people are being let go of today, but are given the option of staying until the 20th to wrap up projects etc. Then isnt that over 2 weeks notice? and yes it does suck to find out you’re getting fired from a blog. If francine would of just let things go as planned then your coach or manager would of broke the news and given you a few weeks to make preparations.
I was laid off from Deloitte early this year. Due to Francine’s blog, I was prepared. I knew what to expect and what to ask for. Plus, I had already removed the important items from my office. So, thanks Francine.
As for PwC’s BS of not laying off, come on! They even had their precious recruiters (e.g., Tax Search) espouse their BS about not laying off. If it was sincere, I commend their efforts. Regardless, the layoffs seem to be here to stay and will continue, despite Francine’s blog. Blaming Francine will not make the layoffs go away. Best the thing to do is to post your experience and keep your colleagues inform. Sorta like unionizing!
These firms (all of them) shouldn’t be able to go on campus and espouse their BS with no accountability. Deloitte was voted the best company to start a career. All 1st year associates in my function were laid off. I bet they would disagree.
Yep, definitely true. I also got the axe today. The total lay off number that the partner I met mentioned is 275. Best of luck to the rest of current PwCers.
Francine, thanks — saw the post yesterday (Wednesday) and was able to mentally prepare myself for that unannounced partner meeting today. Neither I, nor anyone I talked with, could put rhyme or reason as to how the decisions were made as to who was saying goodbye, and who would be spared. Almost every name I heard from our local office was a high performer and had 80%+ util. over the first half of this year (I looked it up in GFS). I smell Bearing Point. It’s almost like hiring illegal immigrants — cheap labor. Even though I’ve been a “1″ coming out of ARC the last four years and just received a bonus not even 2 months ago when salaries were frozen, today I was thanked for my service to the “firm” and showed the door.
The comment thread on this post is actually the most insightful piece of info about the way PwC management has changed over the past few years and how there is never an admit to failure on their part. Funny, I was originally drawn to this firm for how open and transparent they were about everything. I guess when times are tough, true colors shine through.
Not bitter, but just disappointed. The propaganda has worn off I suppose.
@27, so are you saying that this director would not kill himself, if he were laid off and had not read Francine’s blog in advance of the layoffs? Or, are you more concerned with Francine covering the suicide, after PwC lays off the guy?
where is the Partner’s compensation blog???
At Deloitte, those who were high salaried or threatening to any particular partner were targeted. In addition, those who had no strong alliances with decision makers were also targeted. Some the biggest idiots who would mop the floors if asked (due to complete lack of talent, other than @sskissing) are still there. Partners took clients, or directed work, away from certain individuals to give to others. They made a list of those they wanted to keep and slowly directed work away from those they didn’t. Minorities were hit hard. Then, Barry did some piece for a magazine and reiterated Deloitte’s support of minorities. Priceless!
@75 I’m working on it.
@72 Yeah that’s the strangest thing. A few partners called me today and said that Moritz sent out an email with the 275 number while McIlwain told the Advisory partners Monday night that it would be 325. You see, the Advisory guys had not told the audit partners anything so when the blog post went up, the Audit partners had to respond to concerns from their people. So the partners had not reconciled their numbers or gotten their stories straight. Looks like they’ve accelerated the process given the leaks.
Had to delete another comment. Something about rejected bowel movements…Some kind of PwC scat humor?
Francine
what practices within Advisory are being affected?
So basically, because of the leaks and your blog, people are getting fired earlier then pwc planned. Thanks Francine!
@79 I think given the leaks, they saw the error of their ways in doing everything all in one day. Given their previous aversion to “layoffs” and desire to stay under the radar, I would not have advised that if I were in a position to advise. Now they can let them dribble out and still play the “performance ” card with no press release and all of the pompous asses can say that only the dregs were flushed and all is still right with the world.
Except you know and I know and they know what they’re doing. And it’s wrong. And when it’s your turn, and it will be, you will, maybe, finally realize that.
Francine
275 is low. Recall that Deloitte started with 900 and never stopped with their attempt to “right size” the firm that they “wrong sized” in the first place. Ha ha! Not sure if they ever got to the “right size.”
57 - Thanks, Winthorp, glad to know you’ve shed off the “dead weight,” aka human beings.
When you consider the Big 4 layoffs of the past year-and-change, or know much about how these decisions work, there are lots of office politics, a lack of objective criteria to evaluate performance, and layoffs under the guise of “performance based terminations.” I have to think you’re actually trying to maintain that facade, or has PwC really made you so blind to what’s happening?
Just think about this - you’re saying after a historic economic crisis, that D&T and others all had massive layoffs, and PwC is still able in late 2009 to cut “deadweight”? So you avoided all the problems of the past year, AND you were doing so well, you kept around poor performers up to this point! You said it yourself, they were .7% of the U.S. workforce. If that’s the story you want to sell, more power to you.
But I think it is much more plausible that you’re cutting good people because the economy sucks. Why not just say so, instead of rubbing salt in the wounds of decent, talented people? With friends like you …
Fran, do you ever get a feeling of deja vu? I’ve been following (and participating in) this blog for a year now (lurker hiding as Anonymous before that) and it seems to me that so many posts in this thread are rehashes of other posts. Some individuals might want to take a moment and review, say, the Deloitte-focused thread(s) or the prior PwC threads, before going off half-cocked on this latest PwC thread.
Anyway, I’m pretty sure it has to be amusing to be accused of messing up a well-crafted RIF that would have been handled “confidentially” but for your intemperate and ill-timed reveal. Yeah, it’s all your fault, doncha know? I thought about rebutting that post but why bother? It’s been said before, more than once, and people who care enough to do some due diligence can see the prior rebuts. The ones that don’t do the homework are worth the effort of rebutting once again, so why bother?
Here’s the thing, and I can’t get away from it. PwC is not alone but they stand out in the scheme to down-rank otherwise acceptable performers in order to disguise the RIF and call it performance-related. PwC is not alone but they stand out in the scheme to disguise large RIFs by treating them as one-off individual separations. Let me say this clearly: today’s Advisory RIF is not different from the past 18 months except in terms of size and the general announcement by Dana prior to its implementation. With respect to performance ranking, PwC stacked the deck last year when they changed the rankings and ranking process, and it was clear what they were doing. PwC has been working this for nearly two years, whether as part of general contingency planning or as an active strategy (I don’t know which). My message to those being RIF’d today is simple: you are not alone, and it’s not your fault. It’s the fault of your leadership.
I know what I know from calls and emails with many PwC Managers, Sr. Managers, Directors and Managing Directors who’ve “moved on” during that timeframe. I know this because I have lunches and exchange emails with people currently employed at PwC, in all 3 Lines of Service. I know this because I have looked at changes to LinkedIn profiles. My statement is fact-based and not speculative in any way.
Were one of a cynical bent, one might smell a conspiracy to violate the WARN Act, but hey, what do I know about such things?
I don’t have a count on the number of times “Tenacious Truman” has posted on this blog — I often think it’s too many (and I’m sure there are several regular readers who agree with that assessment). It’s been roughly a year since my “good-bye Big 4″ guest post and nothing has really changed at the firms. People are still treated like chattel, whether at Deloitte which demands 125% utilization as the mark of acceptable performance, or at PwC whose leadership has never really been held accountable (publicly anway) for its long string of management blunders. KPMG and EY have their own issues, and have had their own layoffs. I continue to be struck by the sense of powerlessness the individual has at the firm, the lack of a clear chain of command for elevation of important issues, and the role played by HR in protecting the vulnerable flanks (as opposed to actually focusing on, you know, managing humans).
It makes me weary to read the same posts over and over; I can only imagine what goes through your mind. I’m tired of seeing the “it’s a for-profit business, what did you expect” and the “only losers get RIF’d” and the “partners really care and did everything they could before resorting to this regretted action” posts. Yesterday Deloitte, today PwC, tomorrow … TBD. Again, I feel this way just being a semi-regular contributor.
So I think I’ll take a rest for awhile. Maybe you can post another link to my guest blog of late 2008, so that people can get all riled up again in their righteous freemarket anger when they read that my proposed solution was to unionize the staff and engage in collective bargaining. I still feel that is the single most important change that could address the lack of equality between partner and employee at the Big 4 firms. Not that I actually have any hope of that happening any time soon.
Auf Wiedersehen, Fran.
– Tenacious T.
P.S. Does anybody know if Dana is still boxing under a pro coach for his exercise? Or do the demands of the new role give him enough of a pugilistic workout? Just wondering ….
@TT
Yeah, Thanks. It is a little tiresome to have to repeat and keep pointing folks back to what happened at Deloitte, for example, just a year ago. But that’s what I do. Actually I’ve noticed that it seems some don’t eve read the posts, just the comments. The can get the comments via RSS feed and never look at the underlying context, or read anything else including my bio or know that there is an author/moderator here. I feel this because I here some refer to this as a “board” as in a message board. I sometimes feel I should be posting more in the comments but I’m often all talked out after doing a long post.
Not.
Your contributions are always welcome. And if anyone would actually like to read a little content/context, I suggest you reread what TT wrote as a guest post a while back. It’s a great education.
http://retheauditors.com/2008/12/01/music-for-chameleons-a-visitors-view-of-the-firms/
Francine
the regular readers need you, man. screw these trolls, they were all linked here by a colleague, and dont know/can’t appreciate context.
Francine, maybe you should just have a forum section for each firm where flamewars can happen and rumors spread, so the actual ideas stay in the blog.
I personally would like to thank you for your posting. I don’t understand why people are blasting you for your information. I would rather know what to expect up ahead rather than be caught off gaurd. People are going to be stressed out whether they find out from reading this posting or find out when their number gets called. We have been told so many times that “they” will let us know what’s going on ahead of time but it has all been a lie! I have not been with the firm long but have been there long enough to see the writting on the wall. Here I thought PwC was a “Great Place to Work” & a special company to work for only to find that they are just like the rest of “Corporate America”. You can’t trust them because they lie, use you, then step right over you.
Well, Francine you were so right about everything except that the word got out a lil early. You know, it amazes me how we were just informed by one of the “Top” partners that there was no need to get upset or worked up about layoffs because they are not even thinking about that right now & that no one has said anything to him about any layoffs. Hmmm, hard to believe conidering he is responsible for this region!
Well, thanks again Francine for the heads up! I will be riding this wave until the end.
It’s interesting to note that the people chastising FM are the ones who still have a job while those that were let go are supporting and thanking her for the info. I also got invited to one of those meetings, albeit with a different firm, but reading what was going on at other firms helped me prepare and get a bit of a jump on the job search before they officially notified me.
To all those people who feel that it’s wrong to post this kind of info on a blog, when it’s your turn then I’m sure you will appreciate the advance notice.
@85
Forums… Yeah that’s the ticket. Then maybe there’d be a place for comments like I just deleted from PwC San Jose that used language that made even me blush. I though you California folks were mellow. Except “anorexic”. I think that was a compliment. Does your boss know you’re posting from the firm network using such language? Maybe I’d better start making some calls.
Francine
Hi everyone,
PwCer here. I’m a manager, been with PwC for 4+ years. Joined as a starry-eyed staff from a B4 competitor. I drank and genuinely relished the Koolaid but have become a cynic with respect to all of the B4 over the past year. To be clear: If you asked me a year ago, I would have NEVER quit PwC.
Something has changed - radically. Over the past year, it seems like all the great partners (technical realists with social skills - they do exist, that’s what I loved so much working here) have finally succumbed to economic pressures and the powers-that-be.
Gone are the days when you could laugh at the Dilbert scenarios created by HR. They’ve now invented a bunch of metrics that only the non-technical powers-that-be can appreciate: daily time sheets, “touchpoints” (5-10+ forced meetings with clients) per month to sell new stuff, as well as the increased workday requirement from 8 to 10 hours (while the 10-hour workday is not an official requirement, it is by all means implied and enforced). If you deviate on the admin side, you’re on the roster to be fired.
That’s all you are measured by these days, meaningless and contentless goals dreamed up by the marketing/HR folks who have no idea of the technical skills it takes to get the job done. And that’s my problem with PwC these days - it’s all about getting the troops to sell, sell, sell.
So, the powers-that-be are the ones who are in charge of layoffs, and they have bowed to the marketing folks. They need metrics to justify the fact that some people need to go. Since HR can’t judge technical skills, they’ve come up with other metrics. As FM and a bunch of other commenters noted, this is done under the guise of “performance based” layoffs. What I have experienced in my group is a bunch of very smart technical people being “coached out” and, for whatever reason, and the marketers are being left in place.
Query what happens - we have a lot of dumbasses left who do a great job of selling. What happens when the actual work needs to be done?
@48 - I’m also disappointed they didn’t get rid of me in this round.
PwC leaders are LIARS they cant simply come out and be honest and that’s what sad about this. They brag about “people strategy” but turn around and fire people without any communications. That’s just disgusting to me that blogs and coworkers spread the news (with diff levels of accuracy) before the leadership can. Its really sad that they work this way at the firm. In the last 3 months or so we have brought bearingpoint ppl in and new hires with no experience and now they are letting go pwc staff that are on projects for “duplicate skillset”?! They cannot admit failed strategies, constantly changing directions and leadership, reorgs and so on coupled with a bad market contributed to this. It’s time for some clean clear honesty, invite or not, as employees we deserve the truth and leaders with some balls
Current PWCer here. You know, they really should get rid of a lot of the current Partners who couldn’t sell their way out of a paper bag. Many of the newer Partners especially are technically very good, but prefer to stay in the “doer” roles on engagements, and rarely do or know how to go out and hunt for business and win it. I was on one engagement this past year and the Partner was much more concerned with the detail of plans than selling add on work or thinking ahead. Perhaps a culling there is really what would set things right. Good luck to everyone.
I sympathize with those being let go. What I don’t get is why there seems to be an undercurrent in many of the comments that life should be fair. It isn’t, as I tell my 16-year-old on a daily basis. So you do the best you can, protect yourself, and plan for the future. Set aside money in case you do find yourself out of a job. Keep an eye on the market and gauge your value in that market.
In parts of Advisory there is little “recurring” (audit- or Tax-style) work, so we have to eat what we kill. That means many of us who’ve been around a while have to hunt (read “sell”) - those of us who are successful get to stay for dinner. It’s a cruel world, and yes, PwC is part of the world.
Does anyone know if anything was offered to those let go? Severance, etc.?
Thanks
I heard severance.. I’m sure it varies. But I heard 8 weeks.
I currently work for PwC and I just wanted to say that I think that PwC should recieve at least SOME credit for exploring other options besides laying people off. The advisory practice had been hit very hard by the economic downturn, particularly my group, and instead of just axing people like the other Big 4 firms did, they tried to develop strategies that would allow them to hold on to their people. No one received raises, or bonuses this year, partners took a pay cut, no holiday parties, etc etc etc. I think PwC did the best they could and tried to hold on to their people strategy as long as possible but I guess it just wasnt enough. But give credit where credit is due. They tried which is more than you can say for the other accounting firms.
I know several people who have been layed off this week - I wish them all the best of luck and I will truly miss seeing them around the office!!
I’m sadden to hear about the pending layoffs, though this should not be a surprise to anyone. Anyone who has been around with PwC should know that you can’t trust leadership and most everything that is said or done is for the sole purpose of increasing partnership wealth.
I left PwC about a year ago. I was doing very well, Exceptional for the last 5 years. I had built my own niche and client base and as a Director, I was bringing in more $$ than some partners. But, as soon as the downturn (and this has been happening at PwC for two years) occurred, there was a sense of everyone for themselves attitude. My billable codes and development codes were now shared with others who didn’t do a thing to get us there. Slowly, I began to see that what I did, someone else took credit for and the partners began a feeding frenzy into my clients since they can’t sell any work or deliver on engagements or build any relationships. The worst part was that the really good people started to leave and left what was their’s (clients, projects, teams) to the mediocre. So, you ask why the partners/directors/managers are so incompetent? It is because they remained behind and they survived only on the good work of others. When the good people leave, they have no clue what to do. So, it is true - the mediocre becomes the partners of PwC simply because that is what is left.
I’ve got a great job now where I don’t need to worry about competing with my own colleagues. Imagine this, during the proposal process, you need not only worry about other firms as competitors, but also internally, who will try and steal this away from you!
My 2 cents. If you do get RIF’d today it will be a blessing in disguise. Hopefully they’ll give you a package with a bit more than they gave those who were Faux RIF’d for so-called performance issues over the past few months. As for Francine, she spends a lot of time getting the facts checked and again for those who are RIF’d, she may be your best friend in finding roles elsewhere in organizations that really appreciate what you have to bring to the table. She has been AMAZINGLY helpful and really has a calling to connect good people with other good people. In fact, we’re looking for an Associate who has worked on one or more large-scale change projects out of the Ops/PI or People and Change practice. Experience with contracting for professional services and performance benchmarking a huge plus. Needs to be highly (I mean HIGHLY) motivated, a chief nudge from a project management standpoint and has a history of cranking out work on his/her own looking to supervisors for direction and decisions rather than for what to do next. Fran can connect you to me if you fit the bill.
@ post 96. You are spot on! I bailed on these clowns too. These folks have some nerve. They need to let some of the non revenue generating partners go and stop giving them glorified internal titles. And taking shares from them is not going to work. Stop Tripping.. Sorry about the double entendre!
I have a few comments, but would like to say first, Francine, for anyone to do what you continue to do is both amazing and incredibly valuable to the profession and those working within it.
For perspective, I have an advanced degree in business, with a concentration in organization studies, and more than 30 years of business experience. Some of that, prior to the last 17 years associated with professional services, was working in an industry that routinely went through contractions and expansions. There were many layoffs.
I was always one of the fortunate few in my groups that would make the cut and avoid the “ax.” Then, I got the ax at one point. One of my boss’s peers at the time, a director at a $6 billion employer, gave me a heads-up the day before. I remain indebted to him to this day for doing the right thing, because I would have been blind-sided.
In that case, we had just gone through a 360 degree relative value ranking process in our division in the prior 12 months. It was very innovative at the time. I was ranked in the top 5 percent of my division, even though my compensation was in the bottom 25 percent. That was something I was proud of (the ranking, not the salary disconnect!) and it motivated me to do even better work. But the company immediately stopped doing the relative value ranking immediately after that first time.
One of the reasons appeared to be that it was impossible to do a layoff the way they had become accustomed to doing it. As it turns out, people at that company spent a lot of time doing non-productive work that kept them safe in layoffs; mostly internally-focused “preening” to look good, rather than to deliver intrinsic client value. When the company needed to lay someone off that was delivering real value, and could document it if necessary, that created litigation risk and took subjectivity out of the RIF target mix.
The trend appears to have continued to evolve in the direction of preserving information confidentiality for legal purposes at the expense of doing the right thing for the individual, and for the long-term viability of organizations themselves. Shortly before Peter Drucker passed away he reiterated what he had been saying in speeches for the prior 10 years, that productivity in knowledge work had actually decreased in his lifetime.
What I describe above, and what Francine’s “nay sayers” appear to be advocating, is one of the key reasons for what Drucker observed in terms of decreased productivity. People like to feel secure and know what the rules are. Take a look at Deloitte’s October 2009 study to see the disconnect between perception and reality of management and staff in terms of employment priorities and propensity to look for another job (and the reasons for doing so). Management thinks over-working staff is the biggest risk; but staff is more concerned about job security. While transparency is one of the most important elements of true value creation, secrecy is one of the most important tools of proponents of creating more dubious forms of value.
So I would ask of the few attackers that attempt to encourage FM to move on, or stop “telling” the story, what is your motivation? Personally, in my view, it appears that if the Big 4 did precisely what FM suggests, each firm would be: (1) more profitable and attract more “good” clients; (2) less likely to be a target of lawsuits; (3) more attractive to top talent; and (4) enjoy all of the benefits and accoutrements of an excellent reputation.
If this blog is the needle in an information balloon that shouldn’t exist in the first place, so be it. FM appears to target all balloons, so that levels the playing field. My measure of what’s right personally has always been, would I feel comfortable waking up in the morning and reading an accurate representation of what I did yesterday on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. I have honestly been able to answer yes to that for decades. How about you, nay-sayers?
PwC has yet to understand that the Advisory practice can not be run in the same manner as the audit practice. You can’t just sell work and then put a warm body in to do the project, when the project is primarily consulting. A new college grad isn’t going to provide the CEO, CFO or COO of XYZ company a warm confidence in the end work product when the manager/director/partner were not really visibly involved in the project (case in point…the Insurance Industry report r.e. costs of Healthcare Proposed Legislation; my high school kid could have done a better job).
In order to maintain a successful business, Managers/Directors have to be involved day to day existing client projects for the most part, especially with recurring accounts. Why employ Client Relationship Executives (who are 100% sales focused) and then require Managers & Directors to focus 40-50% of their time on sales rather than client service? When existing clients look elsewhere because you’re not delivering the quality they are paying for, and when you can’t attract new clients in the current market environment because your rates are through the ceiling, the entire model goes down the toilet. (If you can’t achieve 15% revenue growth through new sales, than attempting to achieve it by raising rates is really not the most brilliant step to take).
In addition, the performance metrics were revised this year: “For FY10…billing fields will no longer be utilized to measure revenue or sales contributions; however we have introduced a sales credit feature in GFS which Advisory will pilot for Partners, Managing Directors and Directors in the Partner Candidate Development Program…..all other directores and managers should capture sales contributions by utilizing Opportunity Manager and Performance Evaluations from the partner leading the engagement to document impact and contribution to the sale, as appropriate.”…In other words, if the partner doesn’t like you, you are not getting credit for anything you contributed, and if you are not on “partner track”, you are second class.
While I realize this is not totally on point with the unfortunate layoffs occurring now, I think it does support Fran’s point in her original post above related to the lack of management’s ability to really provide a sound business model which survives over time. In my 10+ years with the firm, I have probably seen 7 or 8 different business models rolled out, only to be replaced with the next managing partner. The result unfortunately is a collapsing business model at what once was and could still be a great company to work for. Those who are asked to leave, I sympathize with…those of us who are left will be wondering when the next round will begin and which of us will be included. Francine, thank you for the heads up…I hope you are able to give us the same type of advance warning before the next round comes.
There is an Advisory webcast late this afternoon to discuss a critical business matter. Perhaps we will all know more then….
@101
Maybe how to prevent leaks in the future?
Francine
I hope this message saves a few people some stress. Be proactive and don’t make the mistake that I did regarding the final compensation. State laws dictate how long the firm has to pay (paycheck, severance, unused vacation, holidays, etc) what they owe you. I believed that the firm was going to give me my final compensation package on the date that was in the separation letter that the partner signed. I also believed the firm when they said the checks would come during the next pay cycle after I called to ask why I didn’t get one as expected. 7 weeks after my separation date I finally got angry enough to take action. I called HR and they told me (again) that the compensation was coming with the next pay date. I followed the call up with an email with a reference to the state statute that they were violating and that I was filing a complaint with the state (my state allows for punitive damages against the employer.) My final check showed up the next morning via next day air. Points from my experience:
1- The separation letter that I received from the firm had final compensation dates that were beyond what is allowed by my state’s employment law
2- The firm did not provide my compensation until after a month of the dates specified on the separation letter
3- The firm lied to me several times regarding when I would receive the check
4- PwC CAN cut paychecks ANY day of the week (they told me that they cannot)
5- A chart of state laws regarding final paychecks can be found here: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-29882.html
If I had to go through this again, I would’ve contacted HR when I was leaving with reference to the state law to inform them that they need to pay me according to state law, and not their own schedule. PwC only paid me after I informed them that I was filing a complaint with the state. The check was fedexed to me that same day.
Good Luck to everyone
@103
THANKS SO MUCH! I very much appreciate you providing this info and the resource regarding state laws.
You are a prince.
Francine
I don’t need to listen to the webcast to know what it will say. Here’s how it will go…
“Don’t worry, its business as usual, we had to cut some slack due to performance issues, these guys we cut are lame, the rest of us, we are on track. Keep going out there and sell sell sell, bill your clients in advance if you can, bill them double if they don’t have good internal controls, bill them for stuff that we don’t even do for them, just bill them. This is a great place to work and you are the cream of the crop, now go out there and sell sell sell. You’ve got family members who can buy anything? Introduce them to your partner, send them our latest marketing one-pager on how we can do anything for money, just sell them something, your performance is dependent on it. By the way, there will be no more layoffs (oops, I mean reducing headcount due to performance issues), come to work everyday (including Saturday and Sunday) so you can bill those hours to the client. We’re also increasing rates because if we don’t, we won’t meet our numbers. But, don’t worry, we are worth it. The clients need to pay top dollar for our awesome workforce, McKinsey-who? We’re better than those guys, remember we pay in the middle of the pyramid and they can’t offer what we do - and they are scrambling to compete with us! We are awesome, the partners are awesome, wait until AU, you’ll see, we’ll have a blast drinking away your bonus. Now go out there and SELL!
@105
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
PwC Chicago has a new campaign, “100 New Clients.” Catchy, huh?
Sort of like those pesky trick-or-treaters that still ring your bell after you’ve turned the lights out and curled up on the sofa.
“Go away! I’m through with you guys.”
Francine
I worked as a Manager and Director in PwC Advisory for several years. I found that there were lot of bright people there, but it was a very difficult environment to work in given the internal relationship and control issues within the leadership ranks. MDs/Directors/Managers are heavily rewarded for sales (versus delivery and strategic insight.) MDs and Directors are given sales targets which many times were over and above those of the Partners they report to. And, Partner sales targets and revenues are always a big secret. Partners and other Directors often “cannibalize” the client relationships of other MDs/Directors as a means to roll-up revenues into their own sales books. These practices had often resulted in the delivery of misaligned solutions to clients as more senior-level people would desperately “pile-on” the opportunity in the hopes to get sales credit.
My last year at the firm, I was put “on the list” after taking aggressive stances against these dysfunctional practices – even though I sold and delivered over $3M of client work in the year. I found that being “on the list” was a very humiliating process that included weekly HR meetings, daily touch-points, activity reporting, and a lot of other unnecessary admin. The overall objective was the same: (1) get you to leave the firm on your own accord (I assume to save severance $), or (2) try to frame and document a performance justification for an eventual separation (nice word!) Given the strength of my sales book at the time, (the idiots in) HR developed a bunch of subjective, non-quantifiable improvement points for my PIP (performance improvement plan.), which included things like “improve presence in office” and “demonstrate more effective mentorship with staff” – WTF? Overall, it was a very strange and non-collaborative environment, and when I made my mind up to leave it took me a little over a month to find a similar senior-level role with a non-B4 competitor. I’m much happier now working for a REAL consulting firm.
I empathize with all of the staff (including my friends) who will affected by this reduction. However, I’m seeing that companies are constantly looking for good talent, and having PwC on your resume can be a plus. Good Luck!
@90 — the reason they do not tell you everything the second the ideas are floated is because right up until the last second things can and DO change. This is the same reason why the gossip you hear is only somewhat accurate in the end. Even if every source is reliable, the information changed too quickly for the gossip to keep up. Pay attention to the advice @92 gives and ignore the gossip and don’t expect leadership to feed you ever changing information until the decisions are made (in which case they act so quickly the news comes out when you get the lay off notification).
When it comes right down to it…. there has been such a big deal made about 260 people getting cut in a firm of 32,000 (less than 1% of the total staff!!!!!). All of you who are so aghast at the big bad PwC machine should get a life. PwC has done more for their people than any of the other Big 4 combined. They have held on to people much longer than they should have (and, to boot, gave raises and bonuses equating to more than any of the other Big 4 firms) - but at least the people were getting paid even when there was not enough business to justify keeping them, There was defiinitely a benefit to PwC in holding on to the staff as they were looking to the future hoping they would be better staffed when the economy turned (can you all remember what happened after 404 came into being…all of the firms were scrambling for anyone who could say the word “audit”). The bet has not paid off as the economy has not turned and action had to be taken. But again…..less than 1% of the total population!!!!
Finally as someone before said…. Business is not fair…. partners are allowed to make money. It is called capitalism. Let it go….
Well, we can rest easy…per today’s web cast (not recorded, no questions taken) the 260 reduced staff members will be able to apply for open positions in the WFP. Only problem is that a check of the PwC Career board lists 61 open positions for experienced hires in Public Sector, McLean, Va. I imagine the remaining 199 staff affected will be able to apply in the Pacific Northwest where there must be tons of openings.
Love that kool-aide!!!!!
Yea, the reason why WFP has openings is because their turnover rate is at 32%, even in this economy. Go from bad to worse leadership.
Yes, if you liked 404, WFP is doing A123 (the government’s version of 404). Get paid 20% less, billed out at $70/hour and work with a bunch morons, come on in! You’ll be out in 6 months like most recruits.
@110
First of all, at least there are opportunities for them to apply to…and second, there are over 40 additional positions in the PNW so quit making stupid comments if you do not have the facts. Most people will not want to apply for roles that have them move anyway, and I can almost guarantee that less than 50 people will actually apply for any of the roles. But, for those that do, there is also a relatively generous lump sum relocation package being offered for those that do want to try something different.
Is there really no end to the cynicism??!! Let it go!
@109 Whythehate: Actually, per this afternoon’s web cast, the total laid off represents 6% of Advisory staff, not less than 1%…not my words, Dana M’s words, so obviously you are either not in Advisory, or did not bother to listen to the web cast. As far as this year’s raises & bonuses are concerned, you must have been drinking the kool-aide as well…yum, yum!!!
All the people trying to downplay the number of people let go, which to be honest is only 2 or 3 people who have posted so far (assuming they’re not the same person), need to at least focus on just PWC Advisory or maybe even specific practice numbers. Also, unemployment is projected to stay abnormally high for years, so for all those so eager to rationalize the layoffs, don’t worry, you’ll probably all get your chance to get eggs on your own face sooner rather than later. Keep up the great work of keeping us all in the loop, Francine! Especially about DT. lol
Herenow… Obviously you live in a bubble. PwC is more than advisory. There are 32000 people in the us firm. It is simple math…..
Responses are monitored and censored by the moderator. Readers, keep this in mind if you are trying to wade through the responses and formulate a balanced perspective. If the moderator posts this, I would respect her for doing so but will remain wary about what has been censored.
On the topic, there are countless boutique consulting firms around the world that have folded in the last few decades with no forum to discuss their deaths. We are a collection of 100 boutique consulting firms operating under one brand name. 6 just folded in the name of capitalism. Life goes on. Cherish the freedom to explore options.
@113 You are a very interesting new addition to this web blog. May you grow (up) in knowledge as you learn not to call others comments stupid. So if 50 people apply for 61 positions, and all of them were hired, that would equate to an 81@% hire rate. You really believe that is going to happen? Using your own numbers, 61 + 40 (PNW) leaves 160 folks out in the cold. As far as a lump sum relocation package, that is not true and you should know it. Only partners and some directors receive relocation assistance, not associates & seniors (which are what many of these positions are). I’m not sure you are even a PwC employee, seeing that you seem to know very little concerning the inner workings. The employees who I am personally aware of who were let go did receive a severance package, but there are no guarantees regarding relocation assistance if they are engaged by another PwC division.
Bottom line is the web cast today indicated that all 260 downsized employees would be able to apply for the positions open in WFP and PNW (Pacific Northwest). There are a total of 101 total positions posted for both locations, which was not discussed during the web cast. That was my point, sorry if that seemed to be stupid in your eyes.
Kool-aide is great…please, sir, may I have some more?
@Censored
I monitor for a community, my community, standard. It was explained again early in this thread because unfortunately it was necessary. I either post or delete and never edit. Comments that were deleted (6) were vulgar, threatening to me personally, or both.
If you take a look at what has been posted you will see I encourage open, honest debate, discussion, even disagreement if respects people and their privacy.
Francine
All you peeps commenting on this forget one thing.. The partners fed us the line “no increase so we can keep ya.” now im still around, but it sure does feel bad to lose my closest friend I have there. The lay off was an arbitrary cut, eliminating people with good skillsets while keeping others who provide dubious value. It was thrown at people much like that webcast, a nice quick 8 minute speech just saying “were having a layoff of people with similar skillsets, and thats that” I understand PwC has 32000, but at the same time, Advisory is very different and provides very different services than the mind numbing task simply ticking, tying, and doing steps that are predetermined and given to you to complete. As a former audit person, I am thankful to be in Advisory, still have my job, but wish people could simply see the human aspect. It sucks to lose people close to you, especially when its not justified and done in a secretive, deceitful manner. All i want to know is when will anyone at national wake up and start cutting the real drag on our firm, the partners. The accountability isnt there, and it wont be there for a while. The associates and seniors are the real revenue drivers.
One 5-6th year partner monthly distribution in advisory can employ about 30 - 40 associates and seniors… + including the overhead that goes with it… that’s leverage for you… that’s a lot of the dead weight…
if a partner is 58 / 59… they have an incentive to wait until their mandatory retirement age of 60….. their pension depends on it…… that’s dead weight….
there’s a few partners who are lurking around who are just itching to hit the retirement gold course yet aren’t since they haven’t been forced out and their monthly distribution is better than an 85% cash flow cut they would otherwise get.
if some of the people above paid more attention to detail…. its 260 of approximately 4,300ish National Advisory Employees…. not Audit… Dana oversees Advisory US, not PwC US…. Audit is Audit, Advisory is Advisory…. let each of them worry about their own umbrellas…
Right now its complete chaos in the office…. but even though some friends have a decision to make about their next steps… i’d rather be in the know than get blind sided from what they call ‘a relationship partner’ who most of the time, doesn’t care about their employees / colleagues…. At the very least a person going into that type of meeting can formulate a response, relevant questions, maybe work something out if they know the partner very well… so i’d say thanks to francine since from what i’ve read above for each and every post.. she’s been dead on in her info….
morale of the story, networking isn’t enough, you have to network with the right people, keep your nose clean (or the appearance of it being clean), and play the game… if you can deal with the politics at pwc… you’ll be fine elsewhere….. just don’t burn bridges because you’ll never know where that person will come back into your life later down the road on different terms….
Wow, revisiting this, the comments are insane. Did you really think a blog (fundamentally a news outlet) would learn of a major story within its purview and not report it? The idea that this ruined what was a silly layoff plan is a joke.
PWC and other auditing firms have enjoyed an unsettling lack of transparency in the marketplace. It looks like that is going away. Might want to figure out how to live in this new operating environment rather then look foolish resisting it with nonsensical “you ought to be ashamed…” responses.
PWC is not like other organizations. It hasn’t been for a long time. Its possible to like and feel empathy for the people of an organization, but realize that there is a problem with the whole. We can all hear the death rattle, time to get out. And I don’t think Fran is going to “get over it”, so maybe you ought to.
a couple points from the inside….
- an advisory partner told me straight up that the blog caused them to accellerate the process…..um, any of you partners heard of the internet?
- apparently the partners were shocked that the circle of trust around this thing was broken to allow for the leak…i mean, only partners and HR knew about this. um, yeah. betcha none of those people talked to their spounses, friends or other trusted parties. betcha none of them has an allegiance to someone who has been burned in the past or whatever. the naivete is ridiculous
- clearly this was a reactive week (weak) long process….the whole WFP was clearly a last minute toss in for PR / damage control.
- this has clearly been contemplated for a long time. between this crap, the ongoing blitz bs, playbooks, and everything else, people are out of control. partners are running around like chickens without heads
- so where do we go from here? i will tell you morale is in the tank and people are not scared. if anything, a lot of people thought about exiting pwc as part of this process and proabbly realized that would be fine. i say morale and results will pick up again when we have decent leadership that knows how to motivate people (dana is a cotton mouth talking joke) and start paying for performance. we all took a pay cut this year….how’s that people strategy working out fellas?
@120 (anonymous312) - So spot on. I think the same can be said for the other big 4. There is no accountability for poor strategy and decision-making at the leadership level. F’ the partners who think they are the ones responsible for double digit growth because they can “sell, sell, sell”. (FYI: partners are NOT marketers. They are not natural salespeople. Seriously, how many partners do you know that studied marketing in school??). Yeah the partners are responsible for winning clients, but it’s the seniors and associates who perform the grunt work. They are the ones responsible for sustaining any supposed revenue growth. They are the real growth sustainers. And sadly, we all know they are rarely lauded for that effort.
I had to laugh out loud after the webcast on Friday. It sounded like he read it off a teleprompter - no emotion, no remorse, no understanding of the impact and the willingness to come across as a utter dumbass. Juan has left big shoes to fill and Dana doesnt look like he is even serious about attempting to fill them. An all round poor leader, with no vision and no personality. I dont know how long he is going to be in that role - but I am hopeful that the Partnership realizes they made the wrong choice. Freak show.
Time to RIF Partners, especially since most the ones who made Partner over the past 4-7 years can’t sell water in the desert. They are glorified expensive project managers, when they need to be out selling work.
Why so much hate? Show some love… PwC is a great organization.
It is funny to see the people who have commented on this post, who have not seen the body of work Francine has documented over the last few years.
If you inquired with the PwC’s PR people they will quickly say that PwC has done a great job at avoiding layoffs. However, if you have observed PwC’s culture you’ll quickly find the firm has actively “coached people out of the firm” and “removed people with performance issues” ever since the downfall of sox and the creation of AS5. The latest layoffs (first ones being in Advisory in the spring of 2008) just show they were unable to move enough people out.
We all know we are not going to be given the evidence so we can inspect the numbers ourselves to see what is going on in the firm. People at all the firms both big and small are afraid of their own firm re-performing the same strategies PwC is using right now, because the fact is everyone is doing it to one degree or another.
Personal vigilance is required at all the firms, if you are still drinking the kool-aid its time to kick the sugar habit.
I can understand the frustration that people are feeling at PwC - especially those laid off. But lets all be honest here, if your utilization was down this year, and you weren’t a top performer last year, you had to know this was a possibility. Regardless what management says this was always an option, they pulled all the other “levers” they had and this had to happen. Someone said there were raises this year, but that was only for people promoted and it was a flat %. Everyone else got nothing. The economy hasn’t turned around and PwC can not afford to have another year where they didn’t give raises. Industry has started hiring and many people in Advisory are in front of clients who would love to hire them directly. If PwC isn’t able to equitably compensate people this year, they will start losing their best talent to industry. So letting people go may help free up some budget to ensure at least the top performers are given something this year.
As for the people that want partners fired also - two things - think about this - if you managed yourself - would you fire you? Of course not - you worked to hard to make partner and you think you deserve to stay. Second - its the chicken and the egg mentality. Without the partners selling work, the associates and seniors can’t earn that revenue that you are talking about. So the firm is keeping the people who can sell work and going to ask a lot of the people still at the firm to perform on it. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t. I haven’t necessarily drank the kool-aid but if you think you have better options - then exercise them - because the firm will exercise theirs if they need to also…….
Just my two cents
I am a two year old, who just did something bad, and am angry with someone for tattling on me. Which is worse — what I did or the tattling? Well, it depends who you ask.
I guess if I committed a crime and hurt someone, the tattling can be excused. However, if I am just a greedy SOB who threw my team under the bus to save my own job and salary, is that really so bad? Why is it not rational to blame Francine for everything? If she hadn’t alerted everyone to the layoffs, I could have denied it, spin it, and make it go away. Now, when I send a invitation to an employee, I have to worry about dealing with someone who may feel backstabbed and act antagonistic. Oh, Francine. You just made my life so much harder (even though I am still employed).
I’ve been with PwC now for almost 12 years and I am looking to go. My biggest concern isn’t about leadership or sales, but really ethics. I’ve come to see for myself some of the back office deals that happens in partners’ offices. Some of these partners are just bad news and think that they can get away with anything. The arrogance around the office is just ridiculous.
From top to bottom - I think the mindset at PwC these days is to try and get away with what you can, so you can look good. Lie, cheat, blame others if you need, just make yourself look good. I’m so tired of going into the office and looking behind my shoulders to see who is going to stab me in the back. So far I’ve been stabbed in the back by the partner I’ve made alot of money for, HR whom I did numerous favors for, my coachees who I spent time trying to mentor and my staff whom I brought into my projects only to have a few of them trying to take away my role.
So, its time to go. I don’t want to be around a firm where its all about individual.
I was notified today that I will be “separated” from the firm effective Nov 20th
I am (was) a senior associate.
I received 7 weeks severance pay and the WFP BS offer (with 8K relocation if you get the offer).
The worst part was being informed about the separation from a partner that I had never met before - you think the partner you roll up to, who must have given you up, would have the decency to tell you to your face.
@129- I completely agree… but I’m sure others will give you an earful… so know that you have some support out here.
Francine,
I am constantly amazed at the readers that attack you and question your motives and I am appreciative of the readers that support you. If only your detractors knew that seeking publicity, increasing revenue or simply being bitter could not be farther from the truth in regard to your motivation. Their anger is so obviously misplaced.
Too bad they can not talk to all of the people that worked for you/with you on projects when you were with the Big 4. They would know that you cared as much if not more for them, their career, potential advancement and general well being as you did for the client and the success of the project. When ever you witnessed an employee being layed off, after you did everything you could in your power to save them, you were the first person to help them network in order to find a new position as well as advise them through the difficult situation. Many were extremely grateful and are still, as well as loyal, to you to this day. I know because I was your sounding board in regard to the frustration and sadness you would feel when this occurred to them as well as the frustration you had for your own various situations.
But you did not sit idly by and wait for the ax. You have an uncanny sense for reading people, the dynamics of a company and a situation and recognizing it for what it is. Thank goodness you can now do that without penalty for the benefit of others. These people should be grateful that someone is putting it out there and saying it like it is. Who else is doing it? Not the companies, not the mainstream media! If they don’t like it then they don’t have to read it.
But your detractors, like a moth to a flame, are drawn to your site and if they dive in without thinking they are gonna get burned because in this case they are not smart enough, have the resources, the loyal followers with the insider info. and the pure motive that you have in order to go up against you. They are cooked before they even hit, “submit comment”.
You go Sis!
I’d like to know if @132 experience, getting message from designated “dirty work” partner vs. one you report up to, was common.
Francine
@132 which part of advisory were you? My spouse works for PwC and its interesting to hear about how there is no “team” mentality left at the firm. I guess when shit hits the roof, everyone looks out for themself. Bearingpoint seems to have broken the camels back!!!
@ 135
One of the first things I asked the “dirty work” partner after he gave me his canned HR reasoning for my separation was - ” How come (Name of the partner I roll up to) is not here telling me this in person??”
His response was that he and one other partner were selected to deliver the message (lucky them) - seems like he had the CR booked all day and was just delivering his mostly canned speech to poor schmucks like me and handing out paperwork on how to switch our cellular service from corp liable back to individual - Awesome.
I had been with the firm almost three years and have been billable for almost 90% of that time and had never gotten a bad review. I guess I needed to be more hungry and not just get good reviews but make them standout.
I actually had empathy for they guy, because I realized he actually felt pretty bad and it was difficult for him to deliver this message to someone he didn’t know. I felt worse for myself though
The most frustrating part was definitely not having anyone in there that knew me (even the HR “shield” lady who was there was only known to me by name). Therefore I could not look for an honest answer from anyone there as to why this was happening to me. I wanted feedback - I wanted honesty - I got neither.
To answer your question - yes - I would imagine it was very common for this message to be delivered by a partner relatively unknown to the affected EE.
For all of those above who diminish the numbers of X% of people who were terminated, wait until you get a bad ARC review, or the infamous “Partner” meeting for your performance like @137.
At a minimum, this all started with Carter Pate and his “me first” mentality of pitting Partners and MDs in SAP to make them fight against one another to get credit 18 months ago. Then this brilliance was extended down to a single Director slot in SAP per engagement. Yeah, what a great way to generate teamwork there! Then, Partners began fighting amongst themselves for engagement vs. billing credit. Likewise, directors were duking it out for that sole slot to get their credit as well.
In Dana’s and Carter’s infinite wisdom, they made it even more onerous this year, and where once there were 2 slots, now there is only one. So the Partners are even more maniacal than ever to “own the code.”
Forget Accenture, DT, or E&Y, the enemy is you, your leadership (oxymoron there)! PwC is so concerned about getting individual credit, keeping other Partners and Directors off engagements and billing codes they are killing themselves from “friendly fire.” The catch phrase is “bad behavior.”
And many of these “leaders” don’t have any client interaction or engagement responsibilities, so what do they do to get credit / sales to meet their metrics? They assign themselves to “internal projects” to get sales credit. (Don’t ask me how that works, but it’s commonly referred to as “gaming the system.”)
Ladies and gentlemen of PwC, that is how your Partner leadership sets the example and provides “distinctive client” experience - by asking you to work more hours, raise rates, bill early and often while they siphon off of internal projects.
One of the classics of the past year was when Randy Browning went nuts (May, I believe) and was predicting the “worst month in the history of advisory.” Rather than fess up to reality, he asked everyone to do work normally planned for June in May, bill early, work more hours. Essentially, rob Peter to pay Paul. . .
When people like those described in 137 are terminated, and directors in the Partner pipeline are terminated, at what point do the Partners / leadership above advisory look in the mirror and say, “You folks are running this practice into the ground, and have no strategy beyond the 3 months in Retain. . .It’s time for you to go!”
McIlwain, Browning and Koehneman must be dying to knowr who (Partner or HR) would let the cat out of the bag, and why?
Maybe someone got fed up, looked at the absurdity of the names and why these people were singled out, and had to spill the beans?
What’s happening at PwC is lousy, but there are multiple sides to every issue. I sincerely empathize with those being affected. Being laid off is an experience that scars you permanently, even if it ultimately does turn out to be a positive for you in the long run. One thought about some people (like myself) who have families and mortgages and who are gainfully employed by PwC (or any Big 4 firm for that matter) and feel fairly well compensated for their roles. Job security everywhere is a thing of the distant past… it’s a buyer’s market at the moment where employees are concerned and firms like PwC are exploiting that. That said, I feel almost paralyzed to look elsewhere and try to make a move in this kind of market. I am sure there are others out there who would also love to find another position elsewhere, but just cannot bring themselves to look right now, especially if they have families depending on them.
I have an updated resume ready to go and I have kept my bridges and relationships intact over my 17-year career, but I’m gonna try to ride this out and wait until the job market improves dramatically before thinking of leaving voluntarily. I suppose that’s risky too, but at least I can focus on the job I still have and just do the best I can in that role as it’s been defined… that’s one thing I know that I can control. Show up with a positive attitude, be respectful to others and take the high road (even when they don’t reciprocate, at least you can maintain your integrity and ethics), do your job to the best of your abilities - and just let the chips fall where they may. Can’t control the forced rankings. Can’t control the politics (which are present at every company to an degree, so don’t kid yourself if you think they’re not). Can’t control what others do and say. Some commenters on this blog may say this is a weak and passive approach. Some may say I’m drinking the Kool-Aid. On the contrary, I don’t agree with all the policies and actions of the firm, but sometimes you need to pick your spots and weigh everything important to you in making decisions. Right now, taking care of the job I still have - which equates to providing for my family and paying the mortgage - outweighs everything else. PwC will not be my last career stop - not even close. But for now, riding this out by focusing on what I can control in my current job - for as long as that may last - is an approach that helps me sleep at night. Does anyone else out there identify with this viewpoint? Good luck to anyone impacted by the latest PwC cuts… try to stay positive and stay strong… do not let any bitterness (justified or not) enter into discussions with prospective employers. This is a very unique time in the sense that every company knows how bad things are out there and you get a “free pass” if you’ve been layed off, “RIF’d,” “downsized,” “rightsized” or whatever your company calls it.
@139
Sounds like you’ve thought about this a lot and, for now, have made the right choice for you. Maintaining a realistic and to some extent detached attitude is probably the only way to survive such uncertainty. I hope you can do so while staying ethical and treating your colleagues and subordinates fairly. If the time comes when you can’t, I hope you will think as hard about that. If the time comes and you want to or have to leave, you will find you are not alone in your experience and your regret for wanting/having to do so.
Good luck.
Francine
@ 132
Your situation sounds pretty nice to me (given the circumstances) and I wish my partner(s) and director(s) would have the balls to be direct and honest with me and everyone else. On Monday of this week, a colleague told me that mass layoffs were coming. I passed the news onto another Associate and she began asking questions and eventually sent me the link to this post. So I mentioned it to my team lead on Thursday and he says that we have to head over to the office on November 19th for a meeting with the partner. Since I am on a project, I guess they have to try to squeeze every last billable hour out of me.. you know with times being so tough. It’s just insult to injury to not have the balls to be honest about the situation. Also an insult to my intelligence. I suppose I am better off leaving a firm where the partners and directors don’t have the guts to be honest with their employees or themselves. If they could have admitted last year that they were not well positioned and acted swiftly, then I could have pursued other opportunities. I am mad at myself for believing the malarkey and not moving more swiftly to find another job. The only reason I stayed was because most people hide their vicious backstabbing ways and are actually pleasant to work with on a daily basis (not to mention that they are usually smart).
PwC should have treated their professionals way better in these rough times because when the economy recovers the talent will be sitting across the table as the client in the private and public sector. I can guarantee you that the way they have handled this will come back to haunt them.
Francine, I really do appreciate the fact that you are so direct and can help me cope with this difficult time by giving me the notice I deserve.
Thank you so much Francine!
@ 141….
The situation sounds A LOT like what happened at KPMG Audit after their busy season… the minute their busy season was over and Q1 started, a TON of my friends hit the can… and I mean a lot… so you guys have to be in the office on Nov 19? Boy, that’s just unfair….
I agree with the comment above that said, BP broke the camels back…
That’s a lot of cash that went out the door….
Despite the firms’ attempts to distinguish themselves, it is eerie how similar they are. @138, you’ve just summarized what happened at Deloitte. When the partners who did nothing on their “accounts” realized what was happening in the economy, they suddenly started to squeeze out the directors/senior managers on their accounts. They started setting up meetings with clients and excluding the people who actually served the client. It is all about job security, and the partners’ are scared too. They have the power to (somewhat) protect themselves, while throwing you under the bus. It is so common that the clients are seeing it, which does nothing to generate the business that the firms need so badly. The smarter clients are hiring the resources they need, although it takes much longer to hire someone these days. And yes, the partners are all running the firm into the ground, because they don’t know what else to do and because the cancer has taken over the system.
I am currently a director at the firm and I am trying to get some footing since these events have occurred. All of this has come as a complete surprise to me and evidently to many others including MDs and Partners. In the weeks leading up to this, a number of Managers and Directors either left the firm or were RIFed - not to mention those that were “Separated” in July and August. So why then these cuts? What I would like to know is:
* What is at the root of the cuts? Why the emergency meeting - did they all of a sudden decide that they need to do this? Does this have to do with Morit’z retracted email around “no raises” again for 2010?
* What does the next few months hold? I heard that up to 500 non-”heritage” Bearing will be cut before years-end.
* Where is the firm going? Is the goal to get Advisory lean and mean, build up “transform” type work (e.g., SAP and Oracle) and then spin off advisory?
It may be that the firm has been in total chaos since at least 07 and there is no rhyme or reason but perhaps someone in the know can share. It’s really a sad thing that I need to read this blog to get information.
To my former colleagues that were cut, perhaps you are better off in some ways. Many of those staff that I know who were RIFed since July have landed in fantastic jobs - some so quickly that they were double compensated. Also those strange sicknesses related to stress and uncertainty have gone away.
To continue, one of the seniors walked into a partner’s office one day and saw the partner was writing his own memo. Said partner never did a lick of work before. He obviously needed the chargeable hours himself. It is every man out for themselves.
@139, many at Deloitte held your view and are still there. They have trouble sleeping at nights, worrying about who will stab them in the back next. Plus, many are staying just to collect the severance. Be careful if you decide to start interviewing. Your colleagues will find out and spread the news to protect themselves. You may end up getting tossed, as a result. It is the new reality of working in a public accounting firm.
Finally, whatever you do, DO NOT interview at another public accounting firm. Despite what you may be told, all the other firms are hurting. Some are posting jobs simply to collect intelligence. Don’t be surprised if they tell XYZ clients that YOU interviewed with them because your firm sucks. They are all dying for work.
@ 129:
Rating and utilization did not matter - well at least not in my case. Rated 2 (Higher than expected) this year with utilization currently in the mid 80’s at the Manager level. Was leading a project scheduled to go well into 2010. Was told my skill set was no longer in demand and didn’t fit the tragedy going forward - I actually laughed out loud at that. Gee, that’s funny considering I was told I was being “separated” haha what a great way to put it, on Thursday and have three interviews scheduled for next week already, so much for a skill set no one wants. I’ll take the package (however pathetic it was) as my own little going away present and move on to bigger and better with an organization that actually does have a strategy. I feel terrible for the directors and managers who are late in their careers and have been tossed to the curb for no other reason then Advisory has no clear vision or leadership at least I am in a position to say this was the jump start I needed to actually do something at a firm where I will be respected. Oh yeah, another classy move - The Pulse Survey (internal survey taken twice a year) went out two weeks ago, nice timing PwC - wonder how the results would look if you sent it out now. What a joke. I feel sorry for the friends that are staying behind, twice the workload and half the staff to help. Many who remain are jealous of those who got the package……..
@103 -
Thanks for the heads up - will definitely do this after my attorney finishes reviewing the paperwork they want me to sign. That’s right, I immediately consulted an attorney and I am glad I did, he found a few “areas of concern” on his initial review. I can’t wait for the full outcome tomorrow. HR was actually surprised when I wouldn’t sign it before showing it to my attorney - are they serious????
@ 145, the reason that this came as a suprise is because PwC leadership can send out whatever message they choose and there are few independent sources that can counter that information (that’s why this blog performs a needed service). The BearingPoint acquisition was a mistake from the beginning. The strongest business line from BearingPoint was actually public services and PwC was outbid by Deloitte for this group. Why did BearingPoint fail? There are many reasons, but certainly the poor integration of Arthur Andersen’s consulting practice did not help. Was PwC better prepared to integrate a large consulting practice? Leadership certainly thought so, but were they right? PwC has consistently told its advisory staff that we are going to come out of this stronger than other consulting firms because we will have the appropriate staffing levels to do the work when the economy turns. Apparently, that did not happen in the timeframe that was anticipated. PwC finds itself in a position with decreasing partner compensation and staff levels that are not warranted. The “performance” separations after ARC and the RIFs occuring now are the result. Expect more of the same in the near future if partner compensation does not improve quickly.
@148
Why did BearingPoint fail? It was a long slow slide, started by leadership that took it public that were really auditors, not consultants and not public company leaders. They never adapted their practices or attitude to running a pubic company. Sort of like how one of the commenters here mentioned that PwC doesn’t understand how a consulting firm is run versus an audit firm.
I once had a senior partner at PwC tell me that I was more of a consultant than an internal auditor. I asked what was so bad about that? I thought that’s why Dennis Bartolucci hired me? He said that I may be a great consultant but he had know way of judging that because he was just an auditor.
I’m now starting to hear the “package it up and sell it” rumor about PwC Advisory. That would be second time in less than ten years. When will the clients start realizing that it’s bad business to get involved in mission critical initiatives with a consultant that has no long term staying power in the business?
(Old PwC Advisory sold in 2002 to IBM, which is why you have so few consultants there versus auditors. There are some, but very few, and most had to be imported to jumpstart the practice again.) For some insight on BearingPoint and BP PWC start here.
http://retheauditors.com/2009/03/24/is-a-big-4-firm-buying-bearingpoint/
http://retheauditors.com/2009/05/26/how-satyam-supported-pwcs-schizophrenic-strategy-to-reenter-the-systems-integration-business/
Francine
I agree with @138 that the business model is about individual competition not teamwork. Staff compete for utilization and directors/partners compete for managed revenue. At KPMG only one partner and one manager/director are listed on each engagement as the ones who sold and/or managed the work . The result, people do backstab abd look out for themselves. This is the primary flaw in their business odel. It leads to the fact that there is no real reward for being a true manager. People who develop teams, train staff, stratigize collaboratively, and so on and so forth… these people can only get so far in the firm and then they are held back. Ultimately, all the complaints I see on this blog are a symptom of this specific practice. Albeit, a major flaw… it doesn’t warrant the accusations and anger of those who are caught in the trap. I do believe it will eventually change… but it will take a lot longer to do so.
I know of people who have little utilization, but work behind the scenes in ways that make it possible for those with utilization to do the work (and thus make it possible to sell the work). These people are important to the firm, but are targets — and others are going to extremes to protect them. So far, the right people have been protected (IMHO), but there is inequity in how this is accomplished. Some are protected by not promoting them to the level where they might get noticed, others get the promotion and are transferred into a division where the expectations are different.
It is true that the marketers rule the world — this is true in all organizations. While it is completely and utterly unfair (the issue being that if the doers weren’t standing there ready and able the amrketers would have nothing to market, and if the amrketers sold nothing the doers would have no work… how obvious is the interdependence)… OK, while unfair, the world has settled on the fact that marketers are valued and compensated more highly. The only logic I can provide is that a marketer can win work on a promise and then backfill by hiring the right expertise. The other logic I have been given over the years is because there are so many doers out there that supply outweighs demand. And the last reason I have heard is that as a doer you can only “do” so much and bring in so much revenue. But as a marketer you can bring in all kinds of revenue (I suppose because you aren’t responsible to do it so you can just focus on the marketing). But much of these reasons are fanciful justifications. All I can say — it is the way it is… at all firms of all kinds in the US.
So, back to my point — that the B4 more than other firms accentuate this reward the marketer thing by creating a competitive situation in which managing is not rewarded. It isn’t unethical, per se. Francine indicated in @140 that there is only one inevitable path if you accept this situation (that others call Koolaid) and try to work with it — and that path is you corruption and inability to live with yourself. Some people fight the system from within the system, some people find pockets of fairness within a system and work within it… this is not the ONLY inevitable outcome.
So to @139 I say… your logic is fine, and I would look for the pockets and the ways to address the problems rather than just cave and follow the leader… for following the leader may lead to your personal corruption or you may follow the leader over the cliff. But if you stay and work wisely within the system and push for change… it could be rewarding. The problems the B4 have are real — but not the pure evil that many portrait on this blog.
Any news on the EA/TA positions? I suspect they will be affected also and considering all the buzz around the “mistake” of creating the TA role, it’s only a matter of time before they are separated from the firm.
Francine sticks to what she knows and that is sticking it to good old PW. Time to change the record Francine and get yourself a real job
@152 David Zieloni
This is what I do so you’ll have to get used to it.
If you looked around you would see that I spare none of the firms. PwC just happens to have more partners that are pretty fed up right now. Still, but turgid, waters run deep…
And PwC has probably the worst outlook of all Big 4 given combination of Madoff lawsuits and Satyam.
Francine
Not so long ago, our practice had one of the very best Director decide to leave the firm. Slowly most of the staff on his projects moved on as well, many went along to work with him. By my account, these folks were the 1’s and 2’s in our practice and they realized that those who remain would not look out for them or sell anything of value or interest. The result today is that all of the last year’s 1’s and 2’s have left and we (I admit I’m a 3) are just running in circles chasing our own tails. When I was in school, I thought that I would work with the very best at PwC. This is definitely not true - in the short time I’ve been here, I’ve seen all the really good people leave and the people that remain really don’t have much marketable value, except that they are the best BS’ers I’ve ever met. This is what I am most scared of, I don’t have much technical skills and the only thing that matters at PwC is sales. While I thought that consulting would be a great place to start my career, I’ve realized now that my peers who didn’t join PwC have much stronger technical skills than I do and it would be hard to compete with them in the market.
So, its either try and stick it out and try and become a sales person or find something else where I basically need to start over to learn a real technical skill. I feel that I have lost years in my career by sticking it out here at PwC. Anyone thinking the same way?
@77 - Love your blog on the compensation… makes me want to leave Public Accounting first thing Monday AM!
@83 Tenation Truman
“P.S. Does anybody know if Dana is still boxing under a pro coach for his exercise? Or do the demands of the new role give him enough of a pugilistic workout? Just wondering ….”
Interesting question…..
I used to work for Dana in Los Angeles in the early 2000s, before he moved up to the “big time” in NYC. Back then, I remember that he use to train and show purebreed dogs. Now he’s boxing with a pro? Wow. This provides an intersting insight into his evolution from Junior Partner to Advisory Leader - i.e., client-focused perfectionist to an agressor/competitor persona.
Hmmmmm……
So the objective is to make the partners rich, so after selling MCS to IBM a few partners convinced assurance and tax to fund the start-up of Advisory. Year 1- in the red, year 2 - red again, year 3 - red again………..assurance and tax partners begin scratching their heads as they continue to fund a money losing business. Year 4 - in the red, year 5 - in the red. You get the picture.
Now the assurance and tax partners are getting frustrated. We need a leadership change in Advisory (C.P). Advisory convinces assurance and tax that if they buy BP they can make money. Deal closes and Advisory gets a bunch of staff to go over the contracts from BP. Some BP deals are cancelled, oh shoot things are not looking good and assurance and tax are not going to like it if we are in the red again, especially after we convinced them about BP. We need another leadership change, someone to take the fall, I mean someone who will take orders and get us out of this mess. Dana to the rescue!
Emergency Advisory meeting - how can we show a profit to assurance & tax after we said BP was the answer? They are not going to supplement us anymore…….
Let’s cut 300 employees now and we’ll save some after mid-year ARC.
From a purely financial compensation perspective, how does a Big 4 (or PwC in particular) stack up with other consulting firms doing Advisory work? Every year, except this one ofcourse, we keep getting told that we are being paid competitvely, based on extensive market research.
how does the pay scale at a PwC match up against the outside?
When will we/PwC learn that the Advisory model cannot be run by lifelong auditors?! Idiots. If you want to run a true consulting practice, you don’t have auditors run it. Do we think Accenture or IBM are run by a pack of auditors and tax consultants? If you truly don’t want us to be successful, then spinoff Advisory becuase its clear on so many levels that leadership has no clue how to run a consultancy….at least in the US. Do not keep rewarding Partners who cannot sell work. That is/should be their primary job and most of the ones who have been promoted over the past 5-8 yrs can’t sell anything at all.
Okay, I promised to take a mini-vacation from this blog, but it HAS been a weekend, so that’s a vacation in Big 4 terms, right?
The recent posts on the proper management of a consultancy versus what PwC does are, obviously, spot on. (I say obviously because look at what’s been happening to PwC for the past two years.) I’m not sure that PwC’s Advisory LoS was a consistent money-loser–I’m pretty sure it had average billing rates well north of $300 versus Audit billing rates of a hundred dollars less, so with decent utilization and fantastic realization, it probably contributed to the firm’s bottom-line. But the problem was, as others have posted, that it has been run by long time audit and IA cronies, not true consultants.
Why does this matter? Well, first most of the leadership is smart and can be decisive, but they don’t really understand what the market wants to buy. (I’ve posted on this before, sorry for a repeat.) In the consulting world, the client need is paramount. The client needs what the client needs, and all the selling in the world won’t change that. The client needs SOX, you sell SOX. The client needs ERP, you sell that. You don’t sell what the market doesn’t buy. And you can’t sell what you don’t have available. And you can’t create a need through doubling or redoubling your selling efforts to sell what you have on hand, if it is not what the client wants to buy.
I understand that PwC Advisory has spent an huge amount of internal time and money trying to develop new client offerings and to make its current offerings more relevant to client needs, often to the detriment of its ongoing projects (and project revenue). As SOX declined, billable staff was pulled off jobs to develop the next generation Internal Audit offering. (One of my friends was HEAVILY criticized for complaining that he was pulled off a major IA job at a critical juncture to go work on this non-billable project for several weeks.) Supply Chain Management was in vogue for several months, but then suddenly most of the SCM experts were “separated”. (One of my friends was separated just after winning a $3 million SCM job but before the EL was signed. Result: PwC lost the work.) Et cetera. Juan Pujadas typified PwC leadership when he said that in his view subject matter experts didn’t make good partners, and that his LT was looking for generalists “who can deliver the firm.” Idiots. Do they think Tax doesn’t value SMEs and promote those who win work because they have an expertise the clients want to buy? By that “logic,” Shaquille O’Neal shouldn’t be in the NBA, because he can only play Center. Did I say idiots? I did? Okay, let me say it again. Idiots. When I heard about that statement, I knew PwC Advisory was doomed.
Somebody posted above how a loss of one key Director can decimate a practice, and it’s true — especially when that SME has skills and experience that are valued higher by the marketplace than by the firm. PwC Advisory has a real history of treating people as fungible commodities, undifferentiated by skills and experience, and measuring them by internal metrics that are disconnected from the marketplace by a huge chasm. It’s got to be the height of arrogance to think your own internal metrics matter more than the market’s valuation, but that’s what they do. Idiots.
And that’s the real problem with having former auditors run a consultancy. Even senior associates need some specialized sklls to be put on a consulting project; the clients are not going to pay for on-the-job-training at Big 4 billing rates. If you bill $250 or more per hour, you better be adding value from the start–otherwise the client’s going to feel (rightfully) that it’s getting ripped off.
Another point I want to make is that we continue to see (at PwC anyway) people getting separated who have high ratings and high utilization. Those would be important metrics in another world, but (apparently) not in PwC Advisory. Why? Well my speculation is that each office/practice has been given a headcount reduction number from Leadership. Probably based on use of their internal metrics that continually misvalue people. Since people are inherently fungible, Mike K. just issues one of his little dictats and –boom– you have a 6% reduction. Who gets cut? Well, I’m thinking it’s those who don’t have a strong partner voice looking out for them.
This would be a parallel to the annual review process, where the most important attribute is a partner at the table who knows you and argues passionately for you. Those without such a voice suffer in ranking and compensation. So I’m thinking those without a partner voice get separated, regardless of utilization and rating, while those with a voice get protected.
So if PwC Advisory doesn’t know what the market wants to buy, how to properly value its people, how to retain SMEs with niche abiliities who can drive sales and utilization, and also protects underperformers while shooing out above average performers, then I would say that’s my explanation of how it got to where it is today — underperforming its peers at the other Big 4 firms and death spiraling down the drain.
In my opinion. Based on what I hear from around the campfire. Doesn’t make me happy because I have too many friends still there (this week anyway) but, until the partners get wise and put real leaders in place who can drive the necessary cultural transformation, I don’t see any way back out for them. Might as well sell the sucker and let an equity firm run the show.
– Tenacious T.
P.S. –Fran, your post on the partner agreements was also spot-on. One of my friends who finally made it in (after deferral) told me she was looking to negotiate (or at least discuss) some aspects of the agreement — but what happened was that the new partners gathered as a group and everybody was told to sign the last page and the signed pages were collected en masse. It was a take it or leave it situation. She took it, of course. I’m not sure she’s 100% happy with that decision today. TT
Quick question from a 10 yr. PwC advisory survivor: Does anyone know how to access your employment agreement from myKcurve (or other source, ideally without asking HR)?
I remember signing a new one electronically when I was promoted years ago - was at a client at the time with no printer. Given current events I think it behooves us all to be aware of the details. I’ve done some looking around on myKcurve, but can’t find it.
to 61 anonymous
go to top of page > update profile> click mid page Direct access> scroll all the way down to the bottom of the personal info; click on emplyment contract
1. Why did we hire new hires that started in August within the same group with same backgrounds, then lay people with experience and service time off for “duplicate skillset” can someone explain this to me?
2. why is it that I see associates laid off, go to PwC careers to look up openings and ONLY 2 associate positions in PNW. Where did @113 come up with 40 positions there?
These are valid questions that ten to show:
1. Bad leadership and planning; failed strategies coupled with sensitive behavior.
2. Pure deception to create an illusion to the remaining staff and PR that paints an image that isnt accurate of the situation.
I am just being honest here
You can’t be a pure play consulting company when you can’t sell to half the fortune 500 companies. PwC needs to decide one way or the other what it wants to be: a compliance and internal audit firm or a consulting company. If its the latter, they need to be cut the tether with the audit practice.
@notintheknow
It’s probably more like 2/3 of public companies that PwC consulting would have an independence conflict with if they were honest about it and someone was enforcing the rules.
Francine
@TT — can you explain why there seems to be a belief by you and others that top performers don’t have a partner supporting them while poor performers apparently do. Putting 2 and 2 together you routinely comment that top performers are the ones getting canned and that is because they do not have a partner supporting them. The reverse of this is that poor performers are not gettting canned and this is because they do have a partner supporting them. I can see how these cases would happen in isolated incidents. I want to know why you think that in the majority of times it is one of these cases and why it isn’t that the majority of cases fall in the other 2 buskets (i.e., top performers with a partner supporter and poor performers without a partner supporter).
In fact the tone of your posts indicates that 100% (or nearly so) of the time we are canning top performers and the sole reason is cause they do not have partner support. And other than anecdotal evidence — how can you tell us that this bucket is even the majority or a high percentage of the situations. Might I also add that top/poor performer in this context is as measured by you (which comes with its own biases).
Anony @ 166 –
First of all it’s not me who’s saying this — see in this thread posts #73, 107, 137, and 147.
Second, since the firm is not forthcoming, even with its own partners, all one has is anecdotal evidence. If PwC wants to set the record straight and correct any erroneous reporting, I bet Fran would be pleased to publish a written statement. Until then, I’ll trust the posts here a lot more than what my friends are hearing from Dana. No offense to Dana, actually. I have nothing against him, he’s as much a victim as any other partner in the LT.
Third, it’s not about me or my “biases”. Also see in this thread posts #100, 120, 131, 138, 145, and 154.
Finally, this anonymous posting thing has really got to stop. Surely even you can see that your personal information is just as hidden when you post as “Long-time PwC Employee” as it would be under “anonymous.” All it does is add some accountability to your posts.
– Tenacious T.
Why lay-off associates and replace them with newbies?
Answer:
1.
Because the firm cares more about it’s BRAND image than the commodities(workers) that actually do the work behind the brand-so the firm would rather get rid of an associate so some HR person and Partner can show up on campus and con some young minds that the firm is the best thing since sliced bread !!!!!
2.Because if you are not an owner(equity holder),you are as disposable as toilet paper,no matter how qualified you think you are-so you can be a CPA,CFA,Haarvard MBA ….or whatever,if you are not an owner that makes decisions,you are straight-up TOILET PAPER. tHAT IS IT
…and PwC continues to hit up economically hard hit clients with price increases! Hey Partners, haven’t you ever heard of variable-cost pricing and managing your business via contribution margins? Your marketing/ pricing strategies have been and still are all wrong for this economic environment.
Hints:
1) Reduce as many fixed costs as you can, you might have to close a few offices with short leases.
2) Make each office contribute a set margin above their variable cost to eat into the firm wide remaining fixed costs.
3) Reduce avoidable variable costs - i.e. Partner salaries, new staff salaries (let’s face a 22 year old will take any job now a days no matter what the salary).
4) Go after new business with price discounts and retain old business with price discounts. Replace price with added volume!
5) Keep the best employees that you have - they are actually your only REAL assets.
6) start at #1 again…
Instead, PwC has been dropping smaller audits and benefit plan work for years as “not profitable” enough.
Well as they say, the best accountants do not always make the best business people.
@169
Harvard MBA - ha ha, I run into those at PwC all the time.
Let’s really screw PwC and disclose what our compensation is so others can realize how much they’ve been screwed for all these years. I’m sure this will create another round of frenzy!
I am a 3rd year manager barely making over $110,000.
@ 168 –
Don’t forget that first years do not have any 401(k) matching expenses. I’m not sure but I don’t think PwC kicks in any retirement contributions until after 12 months, either. Pound for pound, 1st years are significantly cheaper labor than 2nd years.
– Tenacious T.
I’m with 171… why the hell not…
I’ll take it a step further…
1st yr associate - 55
2nd yr associate - 60
3rd yr associate - 64
1st yr sr - 67.2….
lets just say….. my first to second year raise… was better than my promo year…. w0w- that blows…
Three years with PwC did much for me. I worked closely with a Director who was a real expert in the field,was passionate about his work and was an excellent sales person. He taught me much about how to analyze data, tested me routinely to be spot-on when presenting in front of a client, and stayed connected to me even though we reported to different offices in different regions. Because of that type of support, I received high praise from each one of the clients we did work for. Unfortunately, he had been a long term employee - already enmeshed in the culture of cover your a.. and make sure you get your numbers. This mindset ensured that he had his numbers every year - regardless of the work he did (or didn’t do) on each project.
As all PwC managers and above know, to get real credit for a job, your name must be one of 4 on a WIP. Two spots are routinely saved for Partners to get credit. That leaves only two others. When most of my projects included a minimum of two directors, you can be sure that the Directors would take the remaining 2 spots. That left the managers out of luck - 95% of the time. At year end, the managers on the projects - who did the travel, work, presentations, and helped identify and capture any add-on work - did not hit the number goals set by HR. Why? Because the Partners and Directors were not willing to share a dime of their bonuses at the end of the year.
I decided to leave on my own after three years. One reason I left was because after being on the road 90% of the time, after receiving regular “awards” for going above and beyond expectations (working 10 to 12 hour days; taking “fake-cations”; being available to our clients at their convenience; etc.), I was never rated above a 3. Every year I was told that it was because I spent most of my time working outside the region I was being rated in. I was told that even though I was hired by the group I was working with, I could only be rated by the region that I lived in. Highly reliable sources (HR and a Director present during my ARC review) told me that only a certain percentage of people could be rated above a 3 - and the decisions were frequently made based on a personal connection with a Partner. The Partner’s I was connected with were outside my region and could not argue for me.
Another reason for leaving was my loss of respect for the entire system that I believe you will find in any of the Big 4. It is a dog-eat-dog environment and you have to be comfortable stepping on others to climb or even just to maintain on that corporate Merry-Go-Round.
To all those who were “separated” - do not let their (PwCs) decision attack your self-esteem. Use any knowledge or experience you received to your advantage. And know that the world outside of PwC can actually be better. As others have said before me, the stress illnesses go away, there are people who actually will respect you, and there are organizations that can and WILL pay you for what you are worth!
Over the past year I have:
1) Reconnected with the real me,
2) am loving my job - excited to go to work every day,
3) spend real quality time with my family (no stress, no blackberry / cell phone interruptions)
4) and increased my salary by more than 1/3rd what PwC paid me
There is not only life outside of PwC - there is a GREAT life! Good luck to everyone!
senior — $110K
Don’t know who one can believe… but a bunch of unknown people (with or without made up meaningless and worthless cover names) with anger, self evaluating their own skills and talents… I wouldn’t go with that. Most people are not good at self evaluation — they are either too harsh on themselves or think too much of themselves.
@ 176… human society at its best..
“Most people are not good at self evaluation…”
Well the HR comedians and the partners suck at evaluating us (as has been said, implicitly or explicitly, all over this thread), so who does that leave to evaluate our worth? Put us out in the market outside PwC or the other Big 4, and see if the rest of the industry doesn’t agree with our evaluation.
@170 - Harvard MBA? High praise indeed considering my meager background. I have saved two troubled companies using these tried and true techniques, how about you?
It was absolutely great that Francine informed everyone that Advisory was going to lay people off. Individuals have time to prepare for this awful news and give support to colleagues that were axed. Maybe the use of the words “Auf Wiedersehen,” was not the best, but still, communicating the message early helps us all get ready.
There are definitely a lot of disgruntled individuals – and deservedly so. But let us be honest with ourselves - did we seriously expect that layoffs would not occur in this environment? You can argue that the business model is broken, that leadership is useless, that all the good people have left, and that all the people left behind are “mediocre.” But those are the same points you hear nearly every time a layoff occurs at a professional services firm. Complain as much as you want, the Advisory practice is going to be around long enough. Right now – as with all consulting companies – they are going through a rough patch (read Deloitte, KPMG; EY, Huron). We all clearly know the risks when we sign our employment contract with a consulting company versus a corporate – the consulting company is more likely to fire as opposed to a corporate, as the corporate one can easily bring services it usually purchases in-house.
Individuals are angry as to why they got laid off – why was it me that got laid off? In this economy, one misstep is enough to cost you. You have to play along with the rules of the system – and as much as you hate to do so. If you don’t play along, then you are simply out. That folks is true of nearly ANY company you work with – not just PwC. The success factors at a professional service firm comes down to relationship building (read: brown nosing) in the office and with clients, and quality of work that you produce.
Remember one thing folks – you joined PwC because of its brand! The name makes you stick around for awhile. You are proud to say that you work for PwC (and heck, the pulse scores year after year indicated that). And when this brand basically says “you are simply not good enough / I am sorry to lay you off / you don’t have the right skill sets,” it hurts you pride – but again, you are able to easily secure jobs post-layoff because what you learned at PwC, and the PwC brand on your resume, makes you easily marketable – and that is all that matters now.
I work in the most hated of Big 4 departments: Finance. All the stories that PwC is telling about it being a tough year and they are doing everything they can to keep as many people as possible is all a lie. I think, at the very top, they know it’s a lie. I have long wondered where the lie becomes propaganda that is believed by some subset of partners and messaged to the general population. The rank and file partners are probably telling their staff’s what they think is true because that is what their leadership has told them. However, it doesn’t take a lot of digging to realize that the words (propaganda) and the actions that the Firm is taking don’t add up. NO ONE SHOULD BE SURPRISED BY THESE LAY OFFS. They have been happening for almost 6 months. PwC is doing a slow bleed by letting people go and attrition. New spots are not being filled. Regarding trying to save staff, not giving raises, bonuses and partners taking pay cuts…that’s all for PR purposes and does NOT reflect the actual revenue from FY09.
Here’s the real story…for PwC FY09 was the 2nd best year of revenue to date. The only year that was better was in FY06 at the peak of the SOX bubble. PwC increased revenue by $17M in FY09 over FY08 (making FY08 the 3rd best year in revenue). This is all after expenses. We didn’t get raises and bonuses and what not because the Firm didn’t want the bad PR over making near record profits when their clients were making drastic lay offs and worrying about their existence. The real question is what happened to all that money we made? My best guess is that it’s going into some little account somewhere where it will bring a real nice return, and in a couple years, when the economy is doing well, the partners will give themselves a phenomonal raise that no one will even think twice about it.
To those that were laid off and will be laid off in the coming year, I’m sorry. In the end, PwC leadership will feel better knowing your sacrifice this year helped them to buy that yacht they’ve always wanted or that 3rd home or whatever it is.
higher revenue doesn’t equal higher profits but I totally understand what @181 is saying. Afterall, PwC voluntarily offered to buy BearingPoint and acquire 800 new staff members so yes there’s money its just a matter of what direction they wanna throw it on and how successful their strategies are, we all obviously know by now that acquiring BearingPoint has not driven any massive sales (SAP and Oracle implementations) as anticipated and the number of engagements in the BearingPoint pipeline didnt even come close to what is being realized. I see BearingPoint acquired staff on the bench, but then old PwC staff get laid off while on a project because the partners cant accept their failed strategies by laying off BearingPoint people that have created a suplus in the firm and are just burning cash.
@PWC125
I doubt there’s much stashed cash given all the litigation costs. If you could see the payouts to the Leadership Team and the Top 25 partners you would see they’re using whatever cash they have to keep the payouts to a limited number of elite partners fairly stable while reducing the numbers and compensation for the rank and file partners. And then there’s the “Exemplary Awards,” bonuses averaging ~100k each to top 4% who sold and sold well.
Francine
We got the offiical note from Bob Moron(itz) yesterday [11.09] saying that “approximately 260″ staff were laid off…I am not certain how close that is to being true but I supposed I could run a headcount report to find out how many they actually did cut.
What is surprising to most individuals that work here is that these cuts are not new to PwC. I work in US Finance and they have been shedding folks for the past 18 months using various acronyms as euphamisms to justify their actions. The first euphamism they used was “SSR” or support services redesigned where we shed about 20% of internal staff through 3 phases (HR, Finance & IT). Next it was “GSS” which of course stands for global strategic sourcing (i.e. ship your jobs to india and uruguay). Again we targeted roughly 20% of the internal organization that “lended itself to outsourcing” and again performed the tasks in waves. We are still under this GSS umbrella and will be for the next several years; moreover we are way behind the other big 4 in shipping our talent overseas. I am proud to say that I at least got a hefty severance package and until December 4th to find a new job (got a 15% bonus at a new firm effective dec 7) so I made out fine.
I Just wanted to alert everyone to this because I look at and report on our financials every month and we are consistently under budget on top line revenue and our actuals are dwindling at a “cost cutting” rate. In fact the US finance organization has a “cost containment” group that focuses on everything from taking away styrofome cups for coffee to eliminating lunches for hard-working travelers.
I would forewarn anyone who is thinking about starting/continuing/finishing their careers at PwC whether it is in a client service capacity, or internally; intently look at how the business is structured and listen closely to the constant lies and the change of direction that is ubiquitous here. I remember an email from Dennis Nally last year that essentially stated what others have said in this thread, “We will not be engaging in headcount reductions like our competitors….” a few months after he left and under a new CEO and CFO this proclomation was thrown in the trash and here we are today.
If you wish to know anything I have no qualms about airing PwC out….
I know the money is there somewhere. FM, your explanation makes total sense to me. I just know they are keeping the money in their pockets and telling the rest of us to be thankful we have jobs. The CFO gave a presentation to the Finance professionals in the past 6 months that he was talking about PwC enormous cash reserves and how the Firm was able to get additional financing (loans) for about $500M. He was clear that PwC is in a strong position because of it’s large cash reserves.
To me, it’s just another disengenous action on their parts that they hope no one picks up because very few actually see the finances of the whole Firm. They have everyone so tightly wrapped looking out for their own heads that few people see the cummulative totals of everyone’s contributions. I’m looking forward to your article on partner compensation.
To all the staff employees, what you may not fully realize is that the Firm has every incentive to make you work as many hours over 40 as they possibly can. After 40 hours you become free labor to the Firm meanwhile still charging the client 100% of those hours. So yes, they are going to cull out the one’s that cost the Firm the most. A first year associate gets charged to the client at the same rate as a 3rd year associate however, costs the Firm a lot less. The best position to be in strategically during a downturn is a first year at whatever staff level. When it comes to these decsions of who to let go they are not rewarded for maintaining technical expertise…they are rewarded for cutting costs and that means cutting the most expensive Sr. Assc. and keeping the least experienced one, and so on up and down the ladder. Being a top performer in years past just might be the thing that’s getting you laid off now…you cost too much for your staff class.
PwC matches 401K immediately upon start date. You get 200% of 6% of your salary the first month(if you put 6% in) and then 1/4th of if what you put in up to your 6% going forward. Its a bad match program, but at least its a match, and at least it starts on your first day
@PwC125
The article on partner compensation was posted late Friday. Can be accessed via the main page. http://retheauditors.com
Live Our Values, Demonstrate Our Behaviors, Support Our Strategy…
Francine
sean in DC @ 186 — my information differs from yours, so I’ll stand by my post #172. That being said, my information is a few years old (all of my contacts have now been there for several years), so it’s possible the policy may have changed since then.
Also PwC125 @ 185 — absolutely spot-on with respect to the OT issue.
– Tenacious T.
All these professionals who are either disaffected or have been let go should start a new firm built on transparency, agility and sound business decisions… I know the barriers to entry in this game are pretty steep, but I’m sure they could give the decision makers at the Big 4 a run for their money. It seems like nowadays the main strategic initiative of the Big Firms is to support and lobby for stronger regulations. I remember the managers and partners groaning when the SOX deadline for non-accelerated filers was pushed back by 6 months, not because of the societal needs for controls at these companies, but because their extra SOX revenue just disappeared.
They are also trying to push the consulting side where they’re just not the big players.
I started with PwC about two years ago. They match your 401k starting in September of the year you join (i.e. if you join in May, June or July, the first 401k match/deduction begins in Sept). It’s definitely not the best match program out there, which I think was changed in ‘07 to reduce the amount paid out (another cost saving measure…right about when AS5 came out..coincidence?).
That’s right — the partners at the B4 firms don’t care about performing quality work so, as a result, they can layoff good experienced people and keep the cheap ones. And this works cause all these partners know that a body is a body and all staff members are interchangeable for any task/assignment. Besides, if the cheaper people take longer (due to lack of skill) and do it on unpaid OT, then those partners make more money on these people. On top of that, they have deep pockets that somehow are so deep that they are hiding all the cash and instead of taking any hit themselves they are taking it solely out of the hides of their employees (either in layoffs or cuts in benefits). That’s right, the staff aren’t whiners and they do not feel they are entitled to something they have not earned, for of course every one of them has earned as much or more than any of these partners. This is exactly why their firms are failing miserably (even though that money is hiden out there somewhere)… and soon they will all be out of business and we will have no sympathy for them because they did all this with malice and intent to harm every employee even though their livelihoods depend on those employees. Oh, but we forgot — if the partners are out of business then there are even less jobs for the employees… what shall they do? That’s the ticket!
For those in Advisory but do “Audit Support” work: The group has already been given quotas to offshore work and certain audit engagements are shifting to a new “delivery model” in which a lot of work is done offshore…. should we be worried that, in the not so distant future, our work will be non-existent and we will be the next to go?
Let me clarify a few things. The reason for your negative comments about PwC is due to the fact that we are #1 in the world. You can’t stand to see us on top. It’s like in sports, people can’t stand the Yankees in MB and Duke/UNC in CB. PwC is like the Yankees in MB and UNC of Men’s college backetball. We are simply the best. We have the best talent. We recruit the best talent. You all have to accept that. I go to meetings/events, I tell people I work for PwC, I get immediate recognition, respect and credibility.
Secondly, I don’t think disclosing your compensation is ethical. Do the right thing. Be a stand up guy.
It all comes down to personality. People keep those around that they like.
I work for a Big Four firm and for years I’ve spent probably 60% of my day surfing the internet/social media and 40% working. I get good performance reviews largely because I complete all the work on time (even though it takes me 40% what a normal person would) and have an enaging personality. So you think I should quit, right? I do too.
Except - it’s hard to find a job anywhere else outside the Big 4 where you get 4-5 weeks vacation, flexible hours and the ability to go through every day working maybe 2-4 hrs. Of course I’m bored silly - but often, fear masquerades as comfort and so rather than leave and do somethign else in industry, I’ve grown accustomed to the comforts of Big 4 life. Where else can I make 6 figures while surfing the Times/WSJ/LA Times/TMZ etc half my day?
#193
Sounds like you’ve been drinking the kool-aid. “Best talent” - ha ha, that’s why our firm is filled with MBA’s and business students from the top MBA schools, right? That’s why a majority of the partners only have bachelor’s degrees (in accounting) and those who have master’s degrees went to tier 3 or 4b usiness schools. That’s why the partners can only sell work when the market mandates it (SOX), they can’t think beyond what is prescribed in the regulation and policy which any Joe Schmo can read; at PwC you get one or two smart people to read the reg and provide guidance for all the partners to follow it. Let’s face it, the really bright ones come in, figure out its a place full of bozos and get the heck out. The ones who remain are folks like you who believe that they are the best.
You’re just kidding yourself.
@193
First, let me congratulate you on your spelling.
Moving on, I found additional value propositions in your sports analogy (I’ve never heard one of those before!) and your absolutist position which you backed up with anecdotal evidence. Also, some things to point out;
1) I’m sure if you’re with the right group of people (read: big fish, small pond) you’d have lots of credibility/recognition/respect/etc. Really. I mean it.
2) I’ve met people in my years at the Firm that don’t make the cut. Too slow, not very sharp….they make up for it by working tons of hours (see previous statement on “sharpness”). And really…the Firm rewards quantity, not quality (Hello Kcurve submissions!). We have dim bulbs and bright bulbs and if you haven’t run into that by now, I have to wonder how long you’ve actually been around or the size of your blinders.
The reputation of PwC was built 100 years ago for audit and tax work, advisory doesn’t have the brand. When people hear PwC, they think accountants - that’s what the advisory folks piggy back on (which hasn’t worked unless its SOX). Even then, the reputation is only because of the huge consolidation in the audit world. When people hear McKinsey, BCG, Bain, they think consultants. Unless you are an accountant, don’t think that you are the best just because you work for PwC. Even audit and tax, the business will be going off-shore soon, so, the brand is diminishing. Imagine, what we used to charge $200 to $500 per hour for audit and tax work can now be done for about $15/hour.
Its funny how Advisory thinks they are the best consultants when they can’t even create a strategy to move itself. For that, we had to hire Bain.
Let’s face it, if you work in Advisory, you might as well chalk yourself up to being staff aug. Most of the businesses out there attract and recruit the best, PwC has no idea what’s going on in the real world. The best we can do is to TELL our clients what to do, that doesn’t work well when you have zero credibility. We’re just going to help them with non-essential work much like a temp agency. Remember a few years ago when the message came out that realization must be at 100% or worse, 95%, well, that rule has changed. I’ve sold work for less than 30% (with no problem getting market leader approval) simply because no one is willing to pay the fees. I love when the message comes out that we had a huge win of $10M, the reality is that is costs us $15M to do the work. Take a look at average realization and margin across Advisory, we’re just slightly ahead of a temp.
@193, uh, PWC Advisory is probably more like the Padres or something in the consulting world. If you’re talking about external audit, that also really depends on how you segment things. In any case, I think you have something of a “big fish in a small pond” mentality. The “best talent” recruited in audit would probably get rejected sight unseen by any respectable consulting firm.
@193.
True to an extent. I joined PwC simply because I was floored by a few of the PwC team I worked with when I was at a smaller consulting firm 7 years ago.
I can stand arrogance, I’m there myself - because the firm puts you in situations where you have to create miracles in short periods of time. That causes self confidence.
The arrogance within PwC is there - and some of it is rightly deserved. PwC often hired very smart, very pro-active people. PwC teams are there before the client showed up - and after they leave….picking up the ball that the client constantly dropped, threw to us, or simply didn’t even see coming. Thats what made PwC a great place to work - the contribution and time put in. It is easy to “be the best” when you compare yourself to the “normal client” - filled with staff punching 9-5 with lots of smoke breaks. But its not always the case….. PwC isn’t any better than many of the other Advisory firms - or even clients in aggressive industries (eg: Financial services, etc).
However, the leadership - as evident from many accounts - is flawed. The decision making has become based on fear, risk aversion, and greed! Advisory has needed to be spun off entirely for years now (how many clients have you personally needed to give up due to Firm “independence”). Audit leaders understand long term engagements with recurring work, but still don’t understand running a consulting practice based on fluctuating market conditions, stiff outside Advisory competition (besides just other Big 4!!!) , or that the PwC Brand is ONLY based upon their workers and their knowledge.
Windy City - that’s pretty funny. I bet you kick my butt in utilization, too, but I don’t blame you. Hate the game, as they say. And if Auditor A surfs the net part of the day and Auditor B works fewer hours but gets the same work done, all other things being equal, we know who gets the better rating, raise, etc.
(He says, while typing a comment on RTA during the workday).
Rockstar @ 99 — yes.
How much do each of the Big 4 firms spend on “branding” and how many people are involved in making branding decisions and controlling how things look and sound because of “branding”?
Yet the brand is only as good as the people. The brand is enhanced — or diminished — every day through interactions with the client and through the quality of the work being done. All the pretty pictures in the world won’t make up for a deliverable that adds no value but cost the client $500,000.
Leadership has forgotten that fact of life, if they ever knew it. They’ve surrounded themselves with marketing and branding lackeys who add little if any value to the firm while impeding the work of the people on the frontlines who are actually doing revenue-generating work, by such actions as reviewing deliverables for correct verbiage, ensuring that the colors are the correct hue, and making sure that the firm’s “look and feel” is there.
Anybody in the trenches who’s worth their salt knows the truth of this [edited] line when applied to brand management:
“The Staff have neither the time nor the inclination to explain themselves to people who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very revenue they provide and then question the manner in which they provide it. They would rather the branding people just said “thank you,” and went on their way. Otherwise, we suggest that you pick up a laptop and get on an engagement.”
– Tenacious T.
The good ones always leave, the mediocre just languish around to become partner.
Let me clarify again… Yankees of MLB, Duke/UNC of College BB, USC of College Football… go ahead just keep hating… With regards to your comment on how our talents compared to that of other professional services firm, I don’t have much to say other than to say that I would put any of my guys against anyone in the marketplace. You can continue to hate but just remember, while you dealing with anger and hate, we are winning in the market place just like Yankees, Duke/UNC, USC are winning championships.
@203
What flavor is it now? The Advisory-Kiwi blast, The Dana Mcllawin strawberry senasation, or the HR blueberry twist? Whatever it is, you’re hoggin’ it all guy! Share some with the rest of us “angry haters”.
“I go to meetings/events, I tell people I work for PwC, I get immediate recognition, respect and credibility.”
This says far more about the events you’re invited to than PwC.
PwC is best Boise State…winning on a smaller stage with the talent left over after the teams with real prestige have signed all the blue chip recruits.
PwC arent like any Yankees or USC lol, seriously, everyone might be hating on those teams but that’s its soo different, Yankees get more compensated more than most other players, USC supplies QBs to the NFL all the time, so every player wants that and I dont hear ex USC ppl or Yankees hating. PwC treats ppl badly, these ppl were recruited and left, so its very different. I am in the Tech team at PwC and what you are painting is a “Google”. We tech ppl can hate on Google but we all wanna be part of it if we can, we know they pay well, get great benefits and you dont see their ex-employees so dissatisfied. PwC isnt Google they treat ppl like shit all the time and thats why people are not happy not because of envy. This is freaking PwC not Google. I understand its got a good brand name but people are being treated like shit and they are being unfair and worrying only what people like you think of their image and pockets rather than their only and real assets - PEOPLE that’s why ppl are upset with the firm and personally, the inconsistency, constant strategy failures called reorgs just sucks, I am here now but I will tell u @203 shut up, this firm blows in many regards its no Yankees!
I am sure you recall Boise State beating Oklahoma in the 2007 Orange Bowl. Boise State beat Oregon this season and is unfeated. I would say that Boise State’s recent dominance in the league can be comparable to PwC;s dominant position in the market. I like your analogy there.
As for the comment indicating that “ppl are upset”, I would say that you are speaking for yourself. I am very happy at PwC and so are many others. It is a great place to work. The respect for the need to spend time with family, the flexibility around work hours…working with top notch clients… brand recognition, fair compensation, strong talent pool… My advice is for you to be positive, work hard, stay loyal (when your partner says jump, ask how high) and good things will happen… you are in a high performing culture.
finally, re comment on “drinking too much”… I like to work hard and play hard… so I do drink from time to time.
Remember this, your partner is your boss. Think about how you can make your boss look good. Do whatever he or she asks you to do and do it well. Also, respect the leadership. These guys are all very charismatic and business saavy. They know what they are doing… hang in there… stay patient. Good things will come your way.
Its obvious that partners now are scared to death and wasting their time on this blog (as oppose to selling business, developing staff, building relationships, etc)…. PwC4Life, how long have you been a partner?
Seriously, PwC4Life…what flavor of the week is it?
Make your Partner look good, and get no recognition for it… that’s all you will get. Some Partners will recognize you and will stick up for you– but not many. Those who will are those for which you should stick by….
How long have you been a member of the rank and file Partnership?
PwC Summarized–
Some go in from college
Work your 3 - 5 year stint
Get their CPA
Leave and get a better job…
So for most of the wiser people get the experience, get the brand, and name on their resume, and leave for a better corporate job or MBA….
Glad you liked it. We should also recall Boise State beating an average Oklahoma team was the biggest win in school history. USC or Florida would have been expected to win that game, and no one would have thought twice about it when they did. Guess that’s the difference between real dominance and the pretenders.
Listen man… no one is scared to death… We are all very proud of what we do… we are focused on helping our clients, delivering value, building strong relationships, etc.
If you are scared, you can’t perform. Do you think guys likes Alex Rodriguez ever get “scared”? How about Michael Jordan or Labron? We don’t get scared… We rise to the occasion
All y’all —
Remember the wise words of Master Yoda:
“The trolls. Feed them not.”
– Tenacious T.
FYI, his name is LeBron not LaBron LOL!
whats the environment like in the audit area - specifically windy city
This post was certainly one of the more informative and shocking out of the ones I’ve read today (I was recently exposed to this blog) I am graduating college in 2012…should I take PwC off my radar? Or will I not even have to worry about them by that point…
Adrian Peterson was on that team.
@215. Re: Graduating in 2012, and questioning about Pwc.
My opinion about whether to keep PwC on your list is, “it depends on you”. I was floored by how great it was to work at PwC. Have a personal plan going in - and execute it every day with your goal in mind.
I left the firm - but am a strong proponent of it - if you look at it the right way, and define your goals going in. Background: I have been in technology consulting practice, left after 6 years…I was a manager “going for director”. I left because my goal 6 years ago was to gain experience and go out on my own because I like risk.
People will complain about pay, work hours, etc everywhere……However, at PwC I worked for top notch leaders (although at the firm, like everywhere else, they can be hit and miss to find), and my goal out of the deal wasn’t money. It was experience. I gained more knowledge and experience (by being eager, “hungry”, and willing) to pass most of my peers in industry by a grand margin (without being arrogant in any way). By putting in the time, and being eager, I’ve had the equivalent of experiences that my corporate peers won’t get until 5-7 years from now. This is due to the fast pasted jobs, and culture.
Go into a fast paced firm that dumps a lot of work on you, and you’ll get opportunities far earlier than you would in industry. There is a trade off - you’ll work a lot, miss parties for a while, and work on the weekends. But while it is more accepted to be a lazy ass 9-5′er when you’re older, don’t do it straight out of college. Your first 5 years out of college have an enormous impact on your future. Because if you accomplish more, and have great references, you’ll be a shoe-in for many positions usually slated for those with more “corporate years of experience”.
However, the firm isn’t a dream on a cloud. It is *MUCH* more political, and backstabbing than “industry”. But you won’t have to worry about that for your first 4 years or so. Do, however, accept the fact that you will bust ass, and at some point the firm will possibly stab you….especially as you get to Senior Management (aka Director). But - if you want the experience out of the deal - it will all have been worth it.
My advice would be to go to someplace like the firm, accepting that you’ll be busting balls for 4 years at least. Then decide. Look at those 5 years ahead of you, what they’ve done, and where they’re going. Then ask yourself do I want that for my life.
PwC is a great place to get your start. It gives you exposure to a really smart bunch of people who like to work hard and you will learn a lot while working with them. The experience is invaluable and the name is recognized.
That said, I’m leaving after a good number of years and happy about it. I want to engage in management consulting and higher level strategic consulting and I can’t get that at PwC due to a culture paralyzed with risk aversion and a lack of clear leadership. Please keep in mind that I’m holding it to a higher standard than others might….I think that often becomes a source of friction between the ones who drink koolaid and the ones who won’t accept marketing as a substitute for true die-hard competency.
Being someone who was recently laid off from GT I empathize with all the persons who have lost their job. It hurts to lose a job, especially when you are a top performer. I however look upon my experience as a blessing. GT gave no raises even if you were promoted, was not giving out bonuses, and was demanding more and more work for the same pay. I found a new job quickly and hope that those recently laid off will too. Since my departure they have gotten rid of a number of technically superior managers with incredible loyalty to the firm (working tons of hours more than they booked, and exceptional auditors who have taught many people skills other managers just don’t have), in favor of those who are less skilled but are in the right “click” with the more affluent Partners. The result has been that other loyal and bright employees have left simply out of realization that their loyalty and hard work are meaningless to the partners. If there is anything this blog and my experiences have taught me it is the following:
The firms do not follow the advice they give to clients. They get rid of their best talent in favor of office politics and “click” mentality instead of developing those persons so that they can become the firm leaders. I have seen a number of instances where persons have given two weeks notice, and been let go 3 or 4 days early simply to allow the firm to save a few hundred dollars. It is short term thinking, and it creates a lot of long term planning issues. By getting rid of the best and the brightest, and playing these games it hurts the firm’s reputation, adversely affects future business (these bright seniors and managers of today are the CFO’s and Controllers of tomorrow, and when they lose faith in a firm, they are unlikely to send business to the firm in the future.), and could result in inappropriate persons becoming partners.
When a firm is in financial hardship, cuts are necessary. It is a hard process for all parties involved. The only thing you can do is be prepared at any moment to lose your job (keep at least 6 months of cash needs in an account), Do your best at everything you do, and lookout for your own future first no matter what your employer tells you.
I’m a senior associate who unfortunately received his marching orders last week as well. It was unexpected and I feel a bit lost as to what to do next. I’d appreciate any tips and feedback about where to go even start looking for a new job. I hate the thought of going back to a corporate climate and would prefer to stay in the consulting world.
Thanks
I completely disagree. It’s that kind of selfish attitude that hurts your chances being successful in the long run. If you look after your Firm and your boss, your own future will be taken care of. But if you don’t do this, you will end up like this guy from GT above. Listen to my advice, stay loyal, work hard, do all the right things and your future will be taken care of. Don’t listen to all the PwC haters here. It apperas they simply didn’t have what it takes in terms of business saavy and skillset and more importantly, they didn’t have the right attitude.
@ 221, please. You are by far the minority at PwC. Trust me I know. Been here for many years now. Advisory is a calamity. The Firm is great at auditing and doing corporate and personal taxes for high end clients, but they know next to nothing about how to run a consulting practice. Try going to an IBM, McKinsey, Bain or Accenture and see how they run. I have been with several of them in meetings and on engagements, and they all get it. We are audit light at best and always will be until there is a true leadership change throughout the Advisory Partnership, or we sell off to someone else who gets it. Clearly the Firm doesn’t get it. You can’t have lifelong auditors running a consulting practice who have no vision or strategy for how to run and grow a consulting practice. I remember when they started the WFP, great idea to sell DoD audits, for ASSURANCE, not Advisory. Look at the US Board…..90% are from Assurance and Tax….leaving 1 or 2 reps to represent IFS and Advisory.
-PWC4life
I never said not to look after your firm and your boss. I said
“The only thing you can do is be prepared at any moment to lose your job (keep at least 6 months of cash needs in an account), Do your best at everything you do, and lookout for your own future first no matter what your employer tells you.”
The first piece of advice is common advice that any financial planner would give to someone, and is the same advice that has been espoused by the financial planning community to their clients for decades, and has been presented by the media to the public for a long time.
A quick Google search gave me this link to be one of the many examples
http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/planningforthefuture/ss/completeport_6.htm
The second piece of advice is essential for any successful professional. Do your best at everything you do. One of the reasons I was able to find a job very quickly after the fact was that I had a number of partners and managers who went out of their way to vouch for me and act as a reference (one Partner called a company I interviewed with while they were on vacation out of the country). They did this because they knew how good I was at my job, and they knew that the reasons I lost my job had nothing to do with performance or skill, but had more to do with the fact that when cuts were made, there were managers and partners who were more influential than them and some peoples jobs were saved not because they were good employees or producers, but because they were in a “click” with partners who happened to have more pull in the decision making process. I give the people in the “click” credit for having the foresight to ensure they got in that click, but at the same time I would prefer to be more capable and intelligent than many in the click (I have worked with many of them), then be a member. Why? Because if the day ever came for these people to look for a job, they would be hard pressed to be able to actually find anything especially in the current economic climate, while I was able to find something within 2 weeks.
The third piece of advice is common sense, and should have been learned by anyone in a professional service firm by the end of the first year. You are responsible for your own professional development and growth, your employer is responsible for maximizing their profit. The firm as a whole does not care if you develop or not, learn new skills or not (certain partners may). When an e-mail or a webcast goes around saying that there will be no raises, or the expenses are being curtailed, and clients are disappearing, or fees from clients are declining (per engagement letters), what does common sense tell you? It tells me that the company (no matter who they are) will take the following steps:
1. Reassure current employees that the company will do everything it can to keep them safe for as long as they can (which is in line with their goal of trying to make profit… no employees = no profit, and unmotivated employees = less profit, either way if employees leave or become unmotivated it will speed up the likelyhood of cuts).
2. When the time comes to make cuts….. Cuts are made (again in line with their objective to make profits. the firms don’t exist to employee people, they exist to make a profit for the partners).
The above two things have happened at almost every company that experienced a layoff that I have ever heard of, and If I didn’t know any better I would assume that it is out of a standard playbook of how companies deal with economic downturns. It never hurts to start looking to see what is out there when a company takes step 1 (you can always reject offers), and it is utter foolishness to ignore the warning signs of step 1.
@pwc4life - you sound like hte consumate yes man / woman. you should know, that as a high performing person in the firm, i would eventually assess you as such if you were working for me and rate you as an underperformer after rolling you as far off of my engagement(s) as possible. your pathetic posts to this blog only strengthen the points many others have made. way to go.
221 - I should really heed TT’s advice @212, but I have to ask about your comment below:
“It’s that kind of selfish attitude that hurts your chances being successful in the long run.”
I didn’t follow the back and forth before this comment, so bring me up to speed - is this an admonishment of partners who hurt the long-term health of their firms by focusing on short-term cuts without asking if they do more harm than good? The ones who show questionable business acumen in burning bridges with many of their high performers, so that they are only defended by those with a minor case of Stockholm Syndrome? The ones who quote Milton Friedman when justifying their pursuit of profit at all costs, who nonetheless will be shocked when some of the ‘utility-maximizers’ at the senior and manager level leave their firms to seek out better opportunities with higher-paying jobs?
If so, excellent point.
Everyone needs to go out this weekend and read the book “Peaks and Valleys” at any Borders/Barnes and Nobles. It’s by the same author as “Who Moved my Cheese” and you can finish the book in 30 minutes.
It’s premise - and largely observant in the Big Four - is that fear is what keeps people from changing. Often that fear masquerades as comfort. I’m comfortable in my job. I’m comfortable in my network. I’m comfortable in my skill set - so while I’m not challenged and passionate - I give in to the fear.
From a Firm perspective - the 1’s and 2’s will leave the Firms en masse as they realize they’re being penalized for the mistakes of the firm overhead. No raises last year - prob no raises/miniscule raises the next two years. Suppose one was a mgr and made 100K. He would probably get 100K this year, 105 next and 110 the third year. For a combined income of 315. Now, if that manager was smart, business savvy and a people person, he could leave now and command 140 base with a 40K bonus - so let’s say 180. 200 yr two. 220 year three. Three years in - Guy one has 315K, Guy two has 600K. Who was the smarter cookie? Plus - the guy who left will have a higher base - and if you’ve ever talked to a recruiter - your next salary is almost always a percentage increase off your current base - so the more steps you can take the better.
Three years from now - the guy who is now a senior manager and Big Four and thinks he can command more has a 110K base salary. The guy who left has a base of lets say 160 by now and will beat him hands down.
If money’s what your after - now’s the perfect time to bolt.
It the partner track is what you desire - time and expense is waiting to be completed =)
“Give me control over a man’s economic actions, and hence over his means of survival, and except for a few occasional heroes, I’ll promise to deliver to you men who think and write and behave as I want them to”
My guess is PwC4Life is a college student who desperately wants to join the firm. I work at the firm and I don’t know anyone with that much zeal.
Sounds like certain individuals never had it to make it to the top at GT. Certainly would not have had it to make it at a Big 4. I understand some partners vouched for those individuals while on vacation, and they were not as influential and hence couldn’t protect those affected. Sounds like those affected didn’t line themsevles up with the right crowd. Also, if you were high performing, you would’ve been send to national, secondment, etc. Keep this mind, don’t let them fool you, they don’t let go of high performers. As many have said on this post, PEOPLE are assets.
You can’t seriously believe that PwC4life is for real right? He is someone just working to get a rise out of people……..
@220
Let everyone you know, know that you need a job. As for help. If you aren’t on LinkedIn, go there. It sounds like a minor thing, but register for unemployment right now. And most important, keep in mind that life doesn’t end if you get tossed out. Even when the severence ends, there are ways to bring in money.
Finally, and primarily important, you have one most important asset: your confidence that you’ll make it through to the next thing. I’m not a CPA (I’m a technology guy) but early in this decade, I got laid off and was without a job for a couple years. The toughest part was when I lost my confidence. You got laid off, not fired, and if you’re good, you’ll make it through.
Last week my partner came to me and said he needed a right arm to keep his window propped open in his house, and that mine was just the right size. Of course I cut mine off immeidately. If you aren’t willing to sacrifice a little for the cause, you sould be let go. Thats the deal you signed up for when you joined. Thats what makes working for the firm the great thing it is, working together to succeed for everyone.
I love the firm and I even have PwC underoos, so I can keep in mind what’s important in life while I’m sleeping. That’s the kind of dedication it takes to succeed and if you aren’t willing to give it, I say good riddance to bad garbage.
PwC4Life=PWCorDeath, he/she will try another name again.
@230.
I echo the advice regarding unemployment…register as soon as you can because it can take a while for the ball to get rolling–I had to wait two months from the time I registered to when I got the first check. Your mileage may vary if you live in a state that doesn’t have an overloaded unemployment system [I live in CA] but I’m thinking just about every state has an overloaded unemployment system these days. Good luck to everyone.
@231. This has got to be a joke right? PwC underoos?
Here’s the thing: Loyalty to your firm and leaders is commendable. Too bad that sentiment is gone the minute you’re laid off. You will never see “loyalty” the same way. It’s a changing world out there. Long gone are the days of my father who worked for the same company for 50 years. My advice is to keep your network and resume up to date and explore opportunities ALWAYS– not only when you are “safe” at your work.
My sympathies to those who’ve been let go. Get all your paperwork done, including releases, Cobra, unemployment. Don’t forget that you could be eligible for paying 35% of your monthly Cobra, while the gov’t picks up the other 65%. Get your health appointments done, and some exercise too. Enjoy 8 hours of sleep for once, and have a few nice home-cooked meals.
And everyone else, please save your cash and keep your ears and eyes open. I’m watching my year-long client like a car accident in slow-mo - furloughs, location closures, segment realignments and reorganizations, subsidiary layoffs, corporate layoffs, shared services, and drops in credit ratings. Am currently trying to outrun the quicksand.
Here are some possible resources if you’re looking for a gig.
Check the #accountingjobs hashtag on Twitter. Here’s an article with more information: http://wthashtag.com/Accountingjobs
Here’s an article with five references to accounting job feeds on Twitter:
http://www.fins.com/Finance/Articles/SB125605830139196837/Top-Twitter-Feeds-for-Job-Hunters-in-Accounting
Not sure if they’re worth much, but can’t hurt to toss them out there.
Also, I’m pretty sure @231 is satire.
Its funny, even the people who post on here thinks that PwC are accountants. 99% of the folks who lost their jobs this past week would not be qualified for these jobs @236.
Just proves the point that the outside world still thinks PwC is a bunch of accountants. There you go PwC4Life, I’m glad everyone is so impressed when you mention that you work for PwC, too bad they think you’re an auditor. Too bad you can’t use audit as a strategy to increase market share (oops I think PwC already tried that).
I’ll just say that I graduated from a top 50 MBA program and no one even considered PwC Advisory a viable consulting firm. I only came because my dad is good friends with a partner and I had no other offers. I don’t work hard at all, I have no clue what I’m doing, sometimes i don’t even go to work and I probably finished at the bottom 20% of my class, but I ain’t getting laid off because my dad will take business away from PwC.
@ 170 and 172
1st yr sr (promoted after two years) making 56k
@237
It took me ten minutes to find those resources. There are similar resources for just about any job type out there. That doesn’t count LinkedIn and a plethora or other resources out there. The jobs are there–there might not be tons of them right now but they’re there if you know where and how to look.
-real to real
I am trying to figure out where to begin.
1. “if you were high performing, you would’ve been send to national, secondment”. Please clarify how performance relates to secondment? I don’t see the corolation.
2. “never had it to make it to the top at GT. Certainly would not have had it to make it at a Big 4.”. I turned down the big 4 when I got out of college. I was the person at my office whom Seniors, and associates contact first whenevever they needed to know how to use the firm software, or get additional opinions on how to audit something, or better understanding on a number of accounting topics. When I was let go the whole office was in “shock and Awe” (you can believe me or not, but the result has been 3 other highly skilled people leaving the firm simply because they lost faith in it. Also, I hate to burst your bubble, but GT and the big 4 really arn’t that different. Big 4 clients may be bigger, but Auditing 1 large accellerated filer is not increadably different then auditing another. Cash is cash, Revenue is revenue, Liabilities are liabilities. It is just a matter of volume (ie: instead of 4 international subsidieries that I delt with, there would be 100).
3 “Sounds like those affected didn’t line themsevles up with the right crowd” I already addressed this in post 222. I give credit to those in the right crowd, at the same time, having worked with them, I know they are not great leaders, nor are they technically proficient (heck that is why they all used to call me many times a day for advise as to how to audit). Associats used to try and get on engagements with me, simply because I taught well.
People are assets, but when your office loses some of its biggest clients, you can’t maintain all your assets. This is a fact. If you think otherwise then you are blind either by choice or through ignorance. Just because you are very good at your job does not mean that you will always get to keep it, hense why you should always be prepared.
40 - man you sound bitter and hurt. Hang in there man. I understand it is hard to accept the reality. My advice for you to stay focused. Work hard. Be loyal. I agree with real to real. I definitely believe KPMG, EY, DT, and PwC are better than GT. You don’t get many plays with FT 500 companies. And I disagree with you in that if you lost a client, that doesn’t mean you are done. If you are high performer, you will get place elsewhere. I have seen it many times in M&A scenarios.
PwCordeath, I agree with your attitude. It is that kind of approach and attitude towards work makes bring the “it factor” to make it to the top..
PWC4Life - I am anything but bitter. I make more money now then I did before with less stress, and more opportunity for advancement, and engaging in challenging work. What makes a FT500 company so special? I have delt with complex SEC issues, been through and passed PCAOB audits clean as a wistle dealing with complex accounting issues of every type. Overseen entire integrated audits of multinational large accelerated filers. It is a matter of quantity not quality of experiance. I didn’t say that losing a client means you are done, I said that I was not a member of the more powerful click, and office politics being what they are… I ended up with the short straw as a result of the loss of revenue to my office (combined with a high middle management heavy headcount in my office).
The company needs business for you to have a job. If I were to tell you that they offered to place me in another office, but I would have to relocate, would that make a difference? I know that someone as committed as you would be willing to move half way around the country to keep a job, but we are not all in the same situation, and some of us have other committments. I am very loyal to my employers (past and present), and I understand the hard decisions they have to make sometimes.
You have made a number of poor assumptions. You seem to think that a firm will keep people employeed when they are not making money, and/or revenues are declining. I suggest look at the fundementals of how to run a business, and how to deal with a situation when revenues are declining, and your labor costs are the largest expense on your income statement. Logic says, cut labor. Once that decision is made, Management (partners, and the like) scurry around trying to protect their “people”. some are more powerful than others. I have seen this occure in a number of companies during my life, and I am confident that there are a number of people in this blog who have had similar experiences.
My simple warning to you is this: If you live paycheck to paycheck you may find yourself in deep trouble at some point down the line if you haven’t built up an emergency cash reserve. If you allow your loyalty to blind your logic and ability to analyze situations, then you will find yourself in a lot of trouble throughout your life (just ask those loyal employees who lost their jobs from Bear Sterns, LB, Circuit City, etc… etc…. etc….) . “always be prepared” is a great motto to live by my friend.
I can’t believe you are comparing BS, CC or LB to PwC. I guess some people have not learned much from the financial crisis. PwC is not a bank. Remember one thing, PwC hires the best and brightest from top universities… we keep top talents through high performance culture. I am sorry you feel that you didn’t fit in with more powerful/influential partners at GT.I think sometimes people tend to blame the system or circumstances rather than accepting that they simply didn’t have what it takes. My advice is exactly opposite of what you said, don’t worry about building cash reserves… (it will happen naturally if you stay positive and loyal), no need to “be prepared”, just stay focused, do whatever you are asked to do, and do them well… you will be just fine.
@PwC4Life - you must either be the biggest troll on the net or the most kool-aid drunk clone I’ve seen thus far. Either way, I applaud you for your effort.
To all arguing with PwC4Life –
There’s a poplular phrase regarding “arguing on the internet” that you might want to google. (Warning: It’s language is offensive to many.)
I remember, in my younger days, hearing many of the same arguments — and believing them. “Trust in the partners, do whatever you are asked to do–and do it well.” Those were words to live by, especially when Dave Duncan said them.
– Tenacious Truman
PWC4Life -
Trying to argue with you is like arguing with a dining room table.
Did the fact that the employees were loyal to these companies save their jobs (BTW: Circuit city wasn’t a bank. )? (This is a yes or no Question) If not, then your argument that loyalty will ensure employement is flawed. (or you can look at the former loyal employees of Anderson if you want an accounting firm example….)
I realize that there is no point in continuing this conversation with you as you are either A) completly ignorent of the business world,. B) A troll, C) A lemming who will parrot the party line while jumping off the cliff into the ocean and drowning yourself.
I wish you a long life and peace and happiness. If you are the ideal PWC employee, Then I am glad I turned them down multiple times.
we are not cc nor aa. LOL
It seems that this last post has caused enough of an impact to bring trolls. I guess that’s a good thing for Francine. Seeing that this is probably the first major troll we’ve had on the boards, I just wanted to let people know that the best way to deal with them is to ignore them.
Let’s focus on what’s important please
Anon and PwC4Life - It’s funny because you’re both aruging the same points. You both need to find inner peace and acceptance in who you are.
Anon - Used to work for GT and is trying to seek validation because he isn’t in a Big Four Firm. The premise there is that one could have worked at a Big Four Firm but turned it down to pursue other opportunities - so should still be given the recognition as if he were with the big dogs. “Big Four experienced required” are the four most hated words he encounters.
PwC4Life - Works at the Big Four but needs to seek validation from others who aren’t as fortunate to tell him know how awesome or smart he is because he made the cut and made it at PwC. The belittling of others is a mask for one’s own fears and insecurities.
In both situations, I feel like the person has lost sight of what’s important. You. The people who tend to suffer the most from layoffs at Pwc, Deloitte etc are those who egos are so bruised that they can’t imagine not going to work at their former employer. Their whole persona - their entire being - was caught up in the Firm and the prestige they associated with it. Now that no longer is an option. What will their friends think? What will their family think? Only the weak get cut from the Big Four etc? The premise is once again - worrying about what others think.
Focus on yourself. If you work for a small firm - relish in that opportunity and enjoyment of seeing a client from start to finish and being their trusted advisor. If you work for a big firm - take comfort that your specialized skill set is second to none in a specific fact pattern.
At the end of the the day, or your life, the only person who is going to ask you if you were happy/successful is that voice in your head that says “I wish I would have done X”.
249- I don’t seek any form of validation, and have never indicated this. I am happy. All I have ever tried to point out in my comments is that employees need to take control of their own future and not rely upon employers to create a future for you.
I have watched dozens of people lose their jobs (in industry, and public accounting) for reasons beyond their control and unrelated to performance (companies going BK, divisions moving and/or being outsourced, or entire firms being wiped out overnight). Many did not plan and were not prepared when their source of income disappeared.
Many people who go to public accounting are comming right from college, with little to no real corporate life experience (and as such don’t know how to prepare themselves for hard economic times, or unexpected career altering events). All I have tried to point out in all my posts (my thesis if you like) is :
“The only thing you can do is be prepared at any moment to lose your job (keep at least 6 months of cash needs in an account), Do your best at everything you do, and lookout for your own future first no matter what your employer tells you.”
If they heed the above advice, they will generally be able to weather any storms in their careers, and even create opportunities out of them (as I have). Ironically many seem to suffer from long term memory problems (the above advice was probably repeated a number of times back at the begining of this decade/end of the 90’s when the tech bubble burst, and was even repeated again in different forms durin the numerous job losses of the past 2 years), and some sort of “This could never happen to me” Complex. As such, many are woefully unprepared.
As for your last sentance, I disagree entirely.
Do your best every day, be the best person you can possibly be, and make the best decisions you can make (and learn from any mistakes you make along the way). Assuming that is the case, you will never even think about making that statement.
49- agree with all your points except for what you said about me…
Anon - is 49 stated, please be real… Big 4 is not in your portfolio… that does not mean you hate… As my b-ball player once said, don’t hate the player but hate the game… I need you to stay focus on your career, stop bashing Big 4, stay loyal to your boss, and most importantly stay positive. Be proud of GT. It is a great firm.
You can ask the CEO of Overstock.com his feelings between PwC and GT =)
From yesterday’s wire - the quote to start it off was comical.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1130713/000110465909065309/a09-31176_5ex99d1.htm
There are a number of companies that have switched between all the audit firms over the years for a number of reasons (from fee reasons, restatements, issuances of going concern, not liking the partner etc…)… I think the CEO is still looking for the Sith Lords that are manipulating his stock price, and he is always a hoot to listen too
http://www.sequence-inc.com/fraudfiles/2008/07/09/the-history-of-patrick-byrnes-sith-lord/
if you look at the risk factors in the 10-Q for the company this is included ROFLOL. How many companies do you know with this disclosure.
“Public statements we or our chief executive officer, Patrick M. Byrne, have made or may make in the future may antagonize regulatory officials or others.
We and our chief executive officer, Patrick M. Byrne, have from time to time made public statements regarding our or his beliefs about matters of public interest, including statements regarding naked short selling. Some of those public statements have been critical of the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory agencies. These public statements may have consequences for us, whether as a result of increased regulatory scrutiny or otherwise.”
Most switch to us… In these difficult times… clients want trusted advisor… a proven winner… the best of the best…
OK PwC4Life — get over it. If most switched to PwC then by now ALL the others would be out of business. Due to conflicts of interest and a variety of other factors — the balance of clients across the B4 is not particularly skewed to any one as far as I know. I know a couple have more audit clients than others — but it isn’t like PwC owns the market and all other B4 are an order of magnitude behind.
I generally have trouble with much of what is said against the B4 on this blog. But PwC4Life is clearly one of 2 things:
1) completely brainwashed and totally ignorant
2) playing with the people on this blog and just trying to get people in a tither over his/her ignorance and stupidity
The @254 post makes it clear — this individual (or individuals using the same handle) is just tossing out meaningless statements just to get under your skin. Well, in this case PwC4Life is annoying to those who are proponents and those who are opponents to the B4. I should continue to ignore it, but I want to reinforce to others — just walk away from such stupidity.
Yes, ignore him/her by all means, but let’s recognise that those posts here, cut-and-pasted from the marketing pamphlets are one of the reasons PwC Advisory are cutting heads now.
I went from Deloitte to PwC who were, frankly, not Deloitte’s bootlace as consultants. Every minute I used to spend discussing the work at Deloitte was spent with my “sales coach” at PwC. I got better at selling but had nowhere near as much to sell, or the quality. Plus trying to explain how the work should be done to re-sprayed audit partners took twice as long. I started to miss the value I got from the consulting partners at Deloitte after about 3 weeks. But my god did those guys believe the hype. They believed it so hard, so fervently, they were utterly blinded to their own shortcomings.
There’s only so long you can polish a turd before the clients realise that all you’ve been selling them is shiny s**t… And advisory pipelines start to empty… and the RIFing begins… and someone notices… and then it all becomes the fault of the people who notice it happening.
Fran, any credible rumors on near term layoffs in Dec and/or Jan? Mid year reviews are set to begin and they are more rigorous (ie well documented) than in years past. They seem much like year end reviews. My sense is that there will be a second round and it will be under the guise of “performance”. Perhaps, like a Tsunami, the second wave is what truly devastates.
I agree ignore PwC4Life, spend your time on something more meaningful.
PwC4Life, you remind me of a partner I met one year at a training.
Most partners are just people trying to make their own success for themselves and their families. All in all, not a bad bunch. Not this guy. He was a walking, talking PR robot. I can’t even really describe it. There was no humanity in there, just firm propaganda.
In all seriousness, one of the scariest people I’ve ever met.
You have no idea. I hope lessoned learned for all is that these guys bashing PwC have no idea about the organization. They are usually from second tier firms in most cases and some couldn’t even make it there (of course it’s not their fault though because they didn’t have any “influential” boss looking out for them). I would say, ignore all the comments by these individuals. Focus on staying loyal. Work hard and good things will happen. PwC is a great organization. One individual tried to compare PwC to CC, BS and AA in making his case. We all know better. Hang in there. These are difficult times but together we can grow, deliver value and win in the marketplace.
So Frances - I just saw your post on the Going Concern blog. Nice tidbit. http://goingconcern.com/2009/11/lost-your-job-no-one-cares.php#more
But my curiosity was raised - why was the week before Veteran’s “one of the most challenging” in your 3 years. You’d think that having that knowledge and being the first to take it to market would add credibility and eminence to your blog. Did PwC try to blackmail you? Just found it odd you were in a challenging environment as opposed to a celebratory coverage…
@Windy City Big4 Slacker
Contrary to what some of my critics think, I never celebrate having to report bad news. If traffic increased as a result, it’s gratifying because that means the message reached more people and that’s my goal. The week of the PwC Advisory RIF post was challenging because never before, in the three years of doing the blog, had I experienced the kind of vicious personal attacks I did then nor had I seen violent threats made to anyone. I was shocked to see some of them coming from the PwC network. I had to up my game and formalize my Privacy and Terms of Use policies. Overdue, but still an unexpected result. I have another blog post ruminating, something like, “This is not your father’s Big 4 anymore.” It was also challenging because it take a lot of time and energy to keep up with the comments as well as all of the mail and calls that come in under those circumstances off line.
No worries about “blackmail.” The firms are smart enough to know, maybe, that I don’t intimidate easily. One of the reasons I won’t ever work for any of them again…. And none have tried to block this site on their network, although the PwC CISO said that that was suggested by some of his superiors. So far, it’s not happening.
Francine
I find it ironic that high level PWC persons are actually considering blocking this blog. What is next? A Chinese style firewall on the server that blocks any site or organization the even remotly criticizes the firm, and an enforced background on all computer screens of a picture of Samuel Lowell Price?
Francine,
I appreciate your commentary and articles. I think its certainly a forum for discussion and an outlet for frustration. I don’t understand people complaining about you providing information. Don’t check the site if you are so opposed. Are the Big 4 glorious and amazing and always putting their people first? Of course not. But do they provide some excellent career opportunities? Of course. There are pros and cons to every large organization.
Stop placing the blame on Francine for providing her opinions and insight. Is she responsible for a man taking his life if he’s laid off? No. What a ridiculous claim. Could she possibly give someone an extra days wanring that they might be let go… enough time for someone to grab all of their business contact information that might assist them in finding a new job…? Yeah, she probably could.
Take it or leave it, but don’t shoot the messenger.
Someone had mentioned this before but it’s worth pointing it out again. Back when Deloitte was chopping heads by the hundreds this blog was full of posts by Deloitte folk reacting with anger and frustration at Deloitte. But the reaction from the PwC crowd is very different, they are quick to defend their firm no matter what happens. Instead of criticizing the firm for making poor leadership decisions that resulted in layoffs (i.e. acquiring 800 consultants from BP and then laying off hundreds of their own consultants to make room) they chose to attack Francine for drawing attention to the layoffs.
Makes you wonder what kind of indoctrination goes on at PwC.
Francine,
As I clicked on my bookmark to this page, and before it came up… I did wonder whether PwC blocked it on their network.. and when it came up… I was surprised to see it come up…I can definitely imagine them saying “our network, our guidelines.”
I do commend you for doing what you do. Its not a good feeling around the office….
Philip J. Fry @ 265 –
I would not be too quick to generalize the posts in this thread as “quick to defend” PwC. To be sure, there have been some very vocal defenders; but there have been some very angry detractors as well — which is why Fran had her discussion with the PwC Chief Information Security Officer. Much like all large organizations, it’s a diverse population.
Unlike many large organizations, however, it’s managed by auditors. With little accountability to the average “shareholder” (i.e., partner).
– Tenacious T.
I’m with TT…. there are many people who are angry at how this has been handled (myself included) as well as the leadership decisions. Internally, there are far more who are in dismay.
At the end of the day, Audit is 50% of the revenue for the firm. We were founded and built on Auditing…. Advisory is the smallest piece of the pie….. heck… in my opinion, McIllwain to some extent is a rank and file when compared to the auditors who manage and run the firm…
To answer your question, we are family. PwC is family. We love working for PwC.You guys can continue to hate Big 4. That will not change the fact that we are better than you. Especially the guy from GT who is upset at PwC. He should chill out. This is none of his business. It is a family matter. We are going to work through this. We are “right sizing” our business. We are strong leadership. just appointed new global CEO. You guys have no idea. Just continue hating. remember the sports analogy… yankees, USC, duke… they will always be hated… because they are on top. Big 4 forever!
@PwC4Life
Family? I must interject here.
I’ve worked a lot of places. Over the years, I became attached to some of them and to many people. However, after a while I realized that I have one family - my parents and siblings and now nieces/nephews. That’s not to say that some people, in some cases the most unlikely ones, ended up sticking with me and me sticking with them like family over many years, in and out of touch, and through some ups and downs.
The illusion that your co-workers and bosses are family and will treat you as such is just that - an illusion in all but the rarest cases. I’m not discouraging friendships or even attachments. Just be realistic about who you give your faith, hope, trust and even love to. It’s a dog eat dog world and most work relationships are situational - good when the situation suits the other person and gone when they don’t.
Francine
re 269
“To answer your question, we are family. PwC is family…It is a family matter. We are going to work through this. We are “right sizing” our business.”
Wow, this juxtaposition is incredible. So, is “rightsizing” *family* like an abortion…or…what?
Family? An accounting firm? You wish. You can trust in one thing: your coworkers and bosses at PwC won’t hesitate to stab you in the back or sell you down the river if it saves their own skin. That’s not family.
Family?
One is reminded of the song by Sting, “Love is Stronger than Justice”. I always thought that one one of his better ones.
– Tenacious T.
@269, your kidding yourself. I just left Deloitte after 12 years, was a top ranked senior manager and was recruited to move to another office to help jump start a new service line. Had a serious blow to my personal life, communicated it to the partners I worked for, thought I would be treated like “family”, they basically kicked me to the curb. Unfortunately it was recently when Deloitte was going through layoffs and lookign for additional ways to get savings. I gave them an excuse to cut a high salary and they drove me and pushed me until they got their way - partnership next year? nope sorry, bad economic times, you need to wait another 3-4 years. Relocated for us - thats your own fault, good luck with everything. I hope those partners are choking on a nice steak dinner from the savings they earned with dropping my salary. It became clear I was a commodity, I shouldn’t have stayed on so long, because when it came down to it, I was simply a number. For years I was on the track, held out as an example, it didn’t really matter. In the end it was a blessing in disguise, there are good jobs out there, I am well paid (same as at DT), but now have higher bonus potential and equity, oh yeah and now I really know what work/life balance is, and it is not what I was buying into at Deloitte. That’s right, having mobile devices so I can respond to emails and review memo’s while at my kids sporting events isn’t balance. Some family.
On a side note, upon rendering my notice, my advising partner told me he had no doubt I made a smart decision, if he had to do it again he wouldn’t have become a partner. Nice!
@269
Family? Which family? The von Bulow family? The Menendez family? The Manson family?
Okay, that’s a little over the top, but my “family” is fixing to cut a lot of people out of the will. Most of these people didn’t steal the family silver and wear the antique lampshade at the latest party. They worked hard and sacrificed because that’s what was called for. And when things got slow, business had to cut costs and people lost their jobs.
That’s how it works sometimes. But let’s stay clear on exactly all of this is and is not. It’s a business. And the people who got whacked were, by and large, not losers, except in the numbers game.
And there are going to be more losers next year. What’s your reaction going to be if you’re one of them?
I followed some of these posts, but reading PWC4LIFE makes me ill. I’ve been in Big 4 and second-tier firms and they’re for the most part, the same.
First, let me say-Francine has driven some thoughtful discussion here.
And second-a person like PWC4LIFE, is someone who has been so brainwashed by the Big 4 mentality that this person is the last I would want on my engagements. This brainwashing, in my opinion, sets the firms up for failure. These clones will do what it takes to make profit for the firm and bend the ethical angles to save their ass.
This person sounds like a second year staff who is willing to sacrifice family, friends, ethics, and life for a firm that is, at the core…about profit at a price.
Good luck PWC4NOLIFE…
I commend PWC4Life’s ability to cause such a reaction. His last post evoked 7 responses so far(including 1 from FM and 1 from TT). I would like to remind everyone that there is no point in having a discussion with someone who is not willing to admit error or the falacy of their argument. I believe that the vast majority of the people who have read this blog see that PWC4Life will continue to troll around looking for imaginary insults in order to continue down a path that degenerates the intellectual discussion related to the modus operandi of the large accounting firms.
Nothing productive can come from PWC4Lifes comments, and nothing anyone will say will change his mind. Simply agree to disagree.
In all of the posts discussing layoffs I’ve noticed a theme of “it’s a business, layoffs happen, deal with it” popping up again and again. Of course it’s a business and nobody is really surprised by the layoffs, at least not at this stage of the recession. While the Big 4 are not alone in the fact that they are laying off employees they are going about it in a way that is very different than other large organizations. When most large corporations conduct layoffs they usually announce it via press release, disclose the size of the RIF and chalk it up to the economy. When the Big 4 need to cut heads they do it quietly, in small batches, spread across a long time period. They never discuss it openly in firm communications, let alone to the wider world. And every few months you get a webcast from the head of the Firm talking about how great the firm is doing..oh, and by the way, we had to “encourage some folks to leave” but that’s OK, because they weren’t really that good anyway….don’t worry, top performers like you are safe.
By handling the layoffs with secrecy and insulting the recently laid off as underperformers they are losing the respect of their employees and creating a lot of angry alumni who will refuse to deal with the firms in the future. I was laid off earlier this year and I’ve already been approached by partners at my old firm trying to network into my new company through me. Guess what guys….it won’t work. Not only will I be sure NOT to hook up my alma matter but as new proposals comes through (and they already have) you can count on my voice endorsing the other firm bidding on the work. Payback….it’s a real bitch.
While smaller firms — I have experience with other firms doing layoffs in exactly the same manner as the B4 have done it. I find nothing unusual about their approach.
@279 - I’m sure the Big 4 were not the innovators of the layoff-framed-as-performance-issue termination, but the point I’m trying to make is that when most large corporations reduce headcount due to economic reasons they announce the layoffs publicly as part of a cost cutting measure. When Citigroup or Caterpillar or General Motors were forced to reduce headcount they simply admitted that they needed to cut costs and they stated the size and scope of the upcoming layoffs.
Had the Big 4 approached their layoffs in the same way then I would accept the “it’s just business, layoffs happen” explanation and leave it at that. But that’s not how they approached their layoffs, they chose to insult the recently laid off as underperformers and they chose secrecy over candor in regards to communicating the layoff situation to the rank and file. Not exactly the best way to maintain goodwill with people who will one day be the clients you’ll be pitching future proposals to.
Leadership decision to create a TA position has now obviously been proven to be a bad decision. Most TA’s are underutilized and some EA’s are overwhelmed with work. So what to do about this horrible mistake - pressure the TA’s relentlessly to get work, get work, constantly pressure the directors and managers to delegate, delegate and it still isn’t working. So again how are “they” going to fix this problem, EASY - terminate a number of TA’s who are underutilized, I mean why pay folks to sit around and do nothing, right? Leadership will not admit that this was a bad reorg move of the admin staff and rather than attempting to fix it, the TA’s will be the fall guys. Prepare TA’s - its coming.
@Dumb Decision
Please explain the role of a TA.
Francine
@280 — I think the mistake the B4 made was not doing performance reductions in force all along. The people I have seen recently RIFed in the guise of performance reduction actually seem to deserve it (but I have only seen 2 such cases). My practice/office has barely been hit by the layoffs and performance cuts (a total of 3 out of over 50) — probably because our partner has done a better job at terminating or counseling out people who are under performers even during the good times. So I do not have the recent experiences others do. That said, my belief (based on looking at other practices and offices) is that way too many poor performers are kept on and even told that they aren’t poor performers. So the mistake that was made was not being honest before and then deciding to be honest now… should have been honest all along. I do have to blame some of that on the legal situation regarding employment laws. It is actually very hard to terminate someone for performance reasons. Due to the fact that everyone can claim they belong to some minority group or claim they were terminated for a reason other than performance… it takes years to document and terminate someone for cause. In many states there is “at will” employment — but the fact that so many people sue firms when they are terminated means it is cheaper to keep them on until they choose to leave than to take the risk of terminating them. This added to leadership not being able to adequately review and communicate the review results — means that some people are being surprised now.
You are right that large RIFs are announced and then executed more openly. I think things could have been done better, but I don’t think it has been a nightmare of horrific proportions. We knew that it was coming and when… we didn’t know the exact day - but we were aware and information was accurate within a week. Yet I have to admit that this information was not formally announced. My understanding (and to a large extent I accept it) was that decisions were not final until the last second. I do know that in my practice/office the numbers changed dramatically — seemed to bounce around from laying off several to in the end only 1. Should the partner announce that 5-10 people may go when the decision isn’t final — and in this case only 1 went? I think all the partner can announce is that layoff decisions are being discussed.