Simon-Kucher reviews

Many cons, and it all comes down to this: SKP US treats its people extremely poorly, and at the end of the day all of the pros are definitely not worth the stress/frustration/hours of work, also provided that there are many other quality LS consulting firms in the US who hire similar caliber of talent. Few salient examples: firing people (whether it be new-ish hires with less than a year with the firm or firing consultants who were recently promoted without proper explanations), annual raise less than inflation rate when the firm is supposedly growing rapidly (while globally SKP may be growing, there are signs that SKP US LS may not be performing and laying people off which might explain some of those firings) On top of that, layer in the thick air in the office of many consultants being overworked, under-recognized, underappreciated, and being underpaid even at director level. I honestly don't know a single person who is truly happy at SKP.

Staffing is a major issue: - High turnover rates. I was surprised how much recruiting happened in the U.S. for the size of the firm. There’s a burst of hiring at the end of each academic year as almost all new hires come straight from college (undergrad and masters/PhD programs). I was told that it was due to growth, but I later came to realize that rather it’s because turnover is incredibly high. When people leave before the next annual wave of hires come in, projects can be quite short staffed. And it’s really hard to maintain institutional knowledge when so much of it leaves each year. - This leads to >90% utilization rates at times -- and some partners forcing routine weekend work, all-nighters, missed holidays and vacation, etc. - I had been assigned to projects with no subject matter expert available, which led to poor outcomes. - I missed a red flag when I interviewed: I asked to speak with people who had experience outside the firm and was only put in touch with a recent MBA grad. People with outside experience don’t stay long. Partners are highly variable. Some treat their teams well and with reasonable expectations, and others are brutal. - One partner questioned my intelligence when I asked for help finding resources to learn new subject matter. - Some partners are standoffish. Some won’t spend much time helping staff that they haven’t worked with before, even on projects they are managing. It felt like a trust issue. Instead of developing staff, they have contempt for those who they feel aren’t as smart. - Some partners rely on favorite managers who can be quite immature who have not worked anywhere other than Simon-Kucher and not learned reasonable working norms. For example, one superior refused to talk to me during a project then gave me poor scores through the feedback system. They would not directly address their concerns with me when I scheduled a time to ask for feedback. -Partners are god-like. One partner made a mistake in presenting some info to a client. The team scrambled to find data to support the incorrect view. And it wasn’t even a big mistake. Work-life balance and office conditions: - One colleague was hospitalized due to exhaustion after several weeks of long hours and weekend work. The underlying issues were not addressed. - A recruiting video highlights a consultant whose wife was about to give birth to his first child. When he told the partner, the partner tells him he didn’t have to travel when the final presentation was a week before his wife was due. And the consultant thought this was such an unexpected surprise. To me, this didn't seem like something to brag about. (If you look on YouTube, you can find the video.) - When I had a legitimate medical issue that required me to get attention during the middle of a project, a partner glared at me like I was trying to sabotage the work. - Heating/cooling is a long-term issue in the Cambridge office. Temperatures regularly exceeded 85 degrees in offices and meeting rooms. After hours, HVAC sometimes turns off altogether, despite people frequently being in the office late. Personal development: - Very minimal personal development opportunities, aside from corporate trainings 1x/year at the world meeting, and not all staff is eligible even for those trainings. - The review process is not connected to reality. Scores are arbitrary. I always scored high until I ended up on a project that went sideways, and my past performance was no longer a factor. It’s entirely possible I wasn’t performing well because, despite my past high scores, partners do not want to show scores that are too low for internal political reasons. - Mandatory 8-day training (including weekends) for new hires at HQ in Germany. Topics were rudimentary for some and advanced for others, showing the little attention paid to personal needs. For most people attending training, it was a big party with late nights. One peer missed a couple of days of training with rumors that they were buying/using drugs at clubs; leadership made excuses when they found out - despite big talk otherwise. - Salaries are below market for firms Simon-Kucher wishes to compete with, which likely leads to departures.