If AI is supposed to replace mundane, everyday tasks then why wouldn’t we reduce GP headcount further? Some of these GPs do not add any strategic value, they seldom make critical decisions and don’t have the competency to lead the people through 2030. We can cut further cost to fund the 2030 ambition and still attain sound input through AI.
2 replies (most recent on top)
Technically with AI there is less reason to have FAs. The client can just plug in his/her financial information and reisk tolerance and AI can sp-t out a recomendation.
If there is any role that could be replaced by AI, it’s the GP role. We would save millions in non-value adid partner distributions and eliminate $100s of millions in annual consulting, executive coaching, and all the other pointless perks for those that produce nothing for the firm.
Ask AI to act as a McKenzie Consultant taking over a private company and you will get the exact playbook being implemented at the firm over the past 5 years.
Pooling resources does not eliminate bureaucracy, it creates more of it.
Laying off tenured employees was not about rightsizing over hiring, it padded profits for partners.
Demotions do not make a company more agile, it ki-ls morale.
Returning to the office to take zoom calls at our desk does not create collaboration, it’s about control.
Paying consultants to think for us, isn’t about staying competitive, it’s stripping out our unique value proposition.
We have added a lot of new toxic leaders to the firm that has shifted the culture, but how can the legacy partners see this and just sit back and watch?