[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Now our multi-national firm has one very remarkable characteris-tic and that is that it is one firm.It s not only one firm in terms of pur-poses and attitudes and philosophy; it s one firm in terms of legalentity, and this is quite a surprise to legal and tax experts.They won-der how we did it.Well, we did it because Larry and our lawyers andtax experts in these various countries made it possible, but it has a sig-nificance to it: As long as we can, we would like to have a single entity.It may be necessary sometime, as we go into other countries, to havesubsidiaries.We hope, however, the subsidiaries will not keep us frombeing one multi-national firm.We will try to disregard the corporateentity, to refer to the legal language.We don t have to do that yet andwe are pleased as a symbol.But more important than the legal setup isthe fact that we are one firm in attitude, and I believe this is a veryremarkable development and a great element of strength.If you think back during the course of the last couple of days, Idon t believe you will have heard much talk about the profits of ouroffice versus the profits of your office; and what are you doing to usthat is hurting our office.And this is an element of great strength in amulti-national firm, and it s something that we want to maintain andthat we have to work at.I believe we can take great credit on ourselvesfor having achieved a singleness of purpose and a unity of the firm.That hasn t come about just by happenstance.A lot of people haveworked at it, and Alex Smith was one of the big workers at that.Alexwas the manager of the New York office which began shucking off itspeople to these other offices, and Alex didn t resist it because he couldsee the value of this in a multi-national firm.As the manager of theoffice he wasn t worried about the profits of the New York office, andthis had a great effect throughout this firm and it s a monument toAlex Smith that it happened.Now, who are we that are trying to carry out these two basic pur-poses? Here s where my figures differ my figures are as recent as lastnight (laughter) and maybe Bill Watts was the last man aboard, but 11131_Edersheim_bapp03_f.qxd 2/10/04 3:21 PM Page 260260 McKinsey & Co.Partners Conference, 1964there are a couple of contenders for that role.My figures tell me that wehave a consulting staff of 250 which is up 24 net as of this time; thatwe have 50 full-time administrators; 263 operations staff for a totalfirm personnel of 538.Now those people are scattered all around thisworld and, more than that, they are multi-national personnel.I onlyhave the nationalities of the consulting staff, but it runs like this: Wehave 23 Britons, 4 Swiss, 2 French, 3 Australians, 2 Italians, 1 German,1 Swede, 3 Dutch, 1 New Zealander, 1 Canadian and 1 Yugoslav who sabout to become an American.That makes 42 other nationalities, andthe balance of the 250 are Americans.So you can see that the propor-tion is changing rapidly and, as Hugh brought out, it s likely to changewith continuing rapidity.What else can we say about ourselves in terms of the people thatare trying to achieve those objectives? I ve got some more data hereabout our educational background.Education isn t important onlybecause of the qualities of mind that it builds in a person; it s an evi-dence of drive and initiative and ambition and determination and a lotof other things to get all the degrees that this group has gathered and,while I don t have them for the administrative staff and the operationsstaff, they ve got a lot of degrees too.At the university and college levelwe have 247 degrees 14 PhDs, 9 LLBs, 15 MAs of one kind oranother; Masters of Science 23; MBAs from various schools, 148(laughter) I ll give you the breakdown: from Columbia, 2; fromWharton, 9; from Stanford, 10; from Harvard, 99; and from others,28.Of those 99, 39 of them came directly from Harvard BusinessSchool and I think about the same proportion if you can make a sta-tistic out of 2 or 10 or 9 it s about the same, maybe 100 percent forWharton but I don t think so.I don t have that compiled [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl centka.pev.pl
.Now our multi-national firm has one very remarkable characteris-tic and that is that it is one firm.It s not only one firm in terms of pur-poses and attitudes and philosophy; it s one firm in terms of legalentity, and this is quite a surprise to legal and tax experts.They won-der how we did it.Well, we did it because Larry and our lawyers andtax experts in these various countries made it possible, but it has a sig-nificance to it: As long as we can, we would like to have a single entity.It may be necessary sometime, as we go into other countries, to havesubsidiaries.We hope, however, the subsidiaries will not keep us frombeing one multi-national firm.We will try to disregard the corporateentity, to refer to the legal language.We don t have to do that yet andwe are pleased as a symbol.But more important than the legal setup isthe fact that we are one firm in attitude, and I believe this is a veryremarkable development and a great element of strength.If you think back during the course of the last couple of days, Idon t believe you will have heard much talk about the profits of ouroffice versus the profits of your office; and what are you doing to usthat is hurting our office.And this is an element of great strength in amulti-national firm, and it s something that we want to maintain andthat we have to work at.I believe we can take great credit on ourselvesfor having achieved a singleness of purpose and a unity of the firm.That hasn t come about just by happenstance.A lot of people haveworked at it, and Alex Smith was one of the big workers at that.Alexwas the manager of the New York office which began shucking off itspeople to these other offices, and Alex didn t resist it because he couldsee the value of this in a multi-national firm.As the manager of theoffice he wasn t worried about the profits of the New York office, andthis had a great effect throughout this firm and it s a monument toAlex Smith that it happened.Now, who are we that are trying to carry out these two basic pur-poses? Here s where my figures differ my figures are as recent as lastnight (laughter) and maybe Bill Watts was the last man aboard, but 11131_Edersheim_bapp03_f.qxd 2/10/04 3:21 PM Page 260260 McKinsey & Co.Partners Conference, 1964there are a couple of contenders for that role.My figures tell me that wehave a consulting staff of 250 which is up 24 net as of this time; thatwe have 50 full-time administrators; 263 operations staff for a totalfirm personnel of 538.Now those people are scattered all around thisworld and, more than that, they are multi-national personnel.I onlyhave the nationalities of the consulting staff, but it runs like this: Wehave 23 Britons, 4 Swiss, 2 French, 3 Australians, 2 Italians, 1 German,1 Swede, 3 Dutch, 1 New Zealander, 1 Canadian and 1 Yugoslav who sabout to become an American.That makes 42 other nationalities, andthe balance of the 250 are Americans.So you can see that the propor-tion is changing rapidly and, as Hugh brought out, it s likely to changewith continuing rapidity.What else can we say about ourselves in terms of the people thatare trying to achieve those objectives? I ve got some more data hereabout our educational background.Education isn t important onlybecause of the qualities of mind that it builds in a person; it s an evi-dence of drive and initiative and ambition and determination and a lotof other things to get all the degrees that this group has gathered and,while I don t have them for the administrative staff and the operationsstaff, they ve got a lot of degrees too.At the university and college levelwe have 247 degrees 14 PhDs, 9 LLBs, 15 MAs of one kind oranother; Masters of Science 23; MBAs from various schools, 148(laughter) I ll give you the breakdown: from Columbia, 2; fromWharton, 9; from Stanford, 10; from Harvard, 99; and from others,28.Of those 99, 39 of them came directly from Harvard BusinessSchool and I think about the same proportion if you can make a sta-tistic out of 2 or 10 or 9 it s about the same, maybe 100 percent forWharton but I don t think so.I don t have that compiled [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]