This podcast teaches readers how to extract up to 80% of the useful information about an article before you even read the article. The podcast first explains the difference between news, facts and opinions, before showing you the steps to analyze an article. Finally, the podcast uses the recent New York Times article about McKinsey and Dominic Barton to apply these very same concepts. You will see that what McKinsey what you to read from this article is very different from the information you should have extracted.

Free Case Interview Material

Receive a free chapter of Bill Matassoni's Memoir and exclusive preview access to FC Insider case interview and strategy video /audio training programs. This is the ONLY way to sample Insider material.

Where else can you learn from ex-partners?

Sign up to receive preview FC Insider videos and podcasts. Start now:



Privacy Policy

Comments

4 responses to How to Analyze Articles

  1. Hi Davor,

    You raise good points. In fact, I posted a detailed podcast about 6 weeks back about some of the tough partner meetings I have be involved.

    The issue however, is that the future of a firm should not be sorted out in the court of public opinion. It opens an entirely new way to form of warfare to manage politics, and while Dominic seems relatively benign, another partner may not be.

    In other words, once you invent the nuclear bomb of partner-related PR, you cannot un-invent it. And you can imagine the European partners may not react, but they are not taking it lightly.

    You are welcome. It is vital to read between the lines and I am glad you are enjoying the podcasts.

    Michael

  2. Michael,
    could this not be a shift in the culture at the firm introduced by Barton, compared to the days when you where there? Potentially, he wants to make the Firm more transparent to the public and set up a new playground in consulting. As much as I understand from your previous podcasts, consulting firms are relatively closed to the media.

    Why would he take out that “dirty laundry” as you say?
    Could it be a way of pressure on the senior partners to commit and embrace the change. Potentially he is resorting to such instrument of influencing to consolidate his position at the firm and consolidate his power in light of facing strong resistance. You would know better than me how partner meetings are run and whether there is strong ego present at senior people in consulting firms, but I infer that there are such cases and I infer that resistance may lead to power show off. I am not saying that it is the right thing to do, but I find power display through “media” a trait common to influential people.

    Adherence => Adherence to the ethics can’t be really determined in a such a short time period since introduction of measures. You mentioned that there is no argument in favor of measures having positive impact on adherence, but that will come up either as positive, negative or neutral impact through a longer period of time. Maybe, it is just too early to judge on improvement to adherence.

    Few weeks ago when you published this article in what fc is reading, I didn’t really go into this type of critical thinking.
    Thank you for posting this podcast, it serves as a good direction point on how to critically analyze and read between the lines.

  3. Hi, the audio should work easily on Safari, Mozilla and Chrome. IE may be a problem. We checked with a few clients and they reported no problems. Have you tried the browsers mentioned above. My apologies for this inconvenience. Michael

  4. Hi Michael,
    Can you please check if the audio is faulty? I have used a few different browsers and cannot play
    Thanks

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.