Considering that the previous PA strategy post was removed, here we go again! Tomorrow they are revealing what the financial angle of the people strategy looks like. Expect dazzlement.

So fill us in then. Were you dazzled?

Most consultancies' people strategies could be summarised as follows:1. Bend staff over a barrel2. Roger staff mercilessly for as long as they can take it3. ???4. Profit!!!EC

Yes - and you can perpetuate this provided you can keep people motivated, through:- sharing out enough of the profit to make people believe they've been fairly rewarded and/or - ensuring they're building their CV up with a range of interesting assignments and clients even if the money isn't greatDoes PA do either??

Was PA ever any good? All I ever hear is bad things about them but they must have had a good reputation at some point otherwise they would not still be around, surely.

Where did the previous PA Strategy tread go!?Tony, have PA's legal team been bullying you again?Censorship sucks balls - many ppl at PA are very unhappy and this is one of their few outlets. Please consider the impact of your censorship.

Morning Bob - that wasn't the case. Please see thread 68051.

As an ex PA person I think it is safe to say I doubt the PA policy would include this kind of thinking:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

so what was the people strategy announcement?

Please leave so we can increase bonus per head

Anyone??

now 25 days vacation up from 23 in the uk.There were mid year pay rises (just came into effect). Also promise of adjustments at year end too (which you won't see until april).And some plans to hire too.Rumours of a lottery style payout to staff number 2000 to leave have been greatly exaggerated!

As any motivation study will tell you get the culture right and financial rewards become relatively unimportant.

So for the benefit of anyone new to this, it's taken us 11 months to come up with a people strategy that sees staff still paid less and receiving less annual leave than any other major firms, and also fails to address the key drivers for the high levels of dissatisfaction amongst current staff.The mid year pay rises were a con. I got a small rise but received low teens bonus for a "high 3" end of year score (my utilisation was well over 90%), which I was told “was about right” - they must think we are idiots. This turned out to be about one third less than my peers from other practices who also got 3's and strangely, the same as at least two people in my practice who got 2's. So overall, I actually got less for being a high performer than the average performers. Last year I wondered whether I'd get rewarded for going the extra mile and the extra hours. In the end I earned less per hour than my peers who put their feet up - this year I've taken the liberty of not bothering to go the extra mile as there's no point.The People Strategy was a last critical chance for PA's leadership to take an objective look at what's working, and not working in the company on the people front. The risible end result and the ridiculous amount of time taken both suggest that the exercise either wasn't taken very seriously by those closest to it, or was constrained from the outset by its terms of reference to the point where the team couldn't actually address the key issues.My view is that the outputs from the people strategy represent an own goal - sites like glassdoor.com consistently show that PA people don't have confidence in the senior management and are significantly less satisfied than peers at other firms. It's hardly surprising so many current staff are job hunting, and even less surprising that savvy job hunters externally are looking at the volume and consistency of the feedback from PA employees and are choosing to focus on other firms instead.

As someone who recruits for the Big4, I know I'd be very wary of hiring someone from PA. It sound like the quality of work and training is very weak.

"The People Strategy was a last critical chance for PA's leadership to take an objective look at what's working, and not working in the company on the people front. The risible end result and the ridiculous amount of time taken both suggest that the exercise either wasn't taken very seriously by those closest to it, or was constrained from the outset by its terms of reference to the point where the team couldn't actually address the key issues." It also suggests that PA's leadership is not skilled enough to "take an objective look at what's working, and not working in the company on the people front"...this says a lot about the skills of the PA leadership

Hang on, aren't consulting companies supposed to be able to do things like "take an objective look at what's working and not working in a company" and isn't PA supposed to be a consulting organisation? That's not going to inspire would-be clients of theirs is it?!

bit like your English then

Nice adult response there - about as informed and subtle as PA consulting's people strategy.

Is PA really that different to anywhere else?I can understand the bitterness because of high expectations - employee-owned and goes on about ethics a lot. But the reality is the same as anywhere else. That's the cause of the cognitive dissonance here?

Physician, heal thyself...No wonder the Strategy and Marketing practice couldn't survive if this is the best they can come up with after so long.Another PA triennial exercise in navel-gazing with, as usual, little real action.If it were a dog you'd have it put down.

So, have I missed it in the thread or does anyone know details of the people strategy? More holiday (25 is still a day less than many) can't be the only change. A little bird told me more 'restructuring' was on the way given the immediate bleak future for public sector consulting. Go get that redundancy insurance those that are left ...Anyone. Informed speculation only please

Bringing PA's terms and conditions up to the bare minimum our competitors offer is not something to be lauded. As for internal rumours of a cull, the next one is predicted to be focused on our sales engine (partner / director / MCs). Why have a highly paid and bonused sales force trying to flog stuff into the public sector? These guys should have been farmed out years ago.The top team also need to be cleared out, but I am sure they will cover their own bottoms.

In a publicly owned company the shareholders would have kicked up such a stink that the top team would have been out long ago.

In PA the Chairman and leadership team are the majority shareholders so not likely to get rid of themselves.Chairman in his own right has circa 10% of the shares

I suppose we can take some limited joy that his personal wealth has deflated in line with the firesale value of the company

"I suppose we can take some limited joy that his personal wealth has deflated in line with the firesale value of the company"Unfortunately not. The value of the company for share price purposes is measured by the size of the cash pile. The company is still profitable albeit with less shareholders and the many people who have left their deferred bonuses behind. The PA share price continues to rise so the value of the Chairman's stake has actually rise despite losing a quarter of the staff and turnover reducing by a 1/3 over the last 3 years.

There was me thinking that my deferred bonus was to reward my loyalty. Surely it is too cynical to suggest that it might be deferred so that it can get clawed back into the cash pile when individuals leave because they can't stand it any longer or get pushed out by the organisation. Then again...

Anon not sure how you could have viewed deferred bonus as a reward mechanism. By their very nature deferred bonus's are in place for retention purposes not reward.