n our latest findings, the share of respondents reporting mitigation efforts for risks such as personal and individual privacy, explainability, organizational reputation, and regulatory compliance has grown since we last asked about risks associated with AI overall in 2022.
did they also ask whether those mitigation efforts negate gains in efficiency / innovation reported for AI?
While a plurality of respondents expect to see little or no effect on their organizations’ total number of employees in the year ahead, 32 percent predict an overall reduction of 3 percent or more, and 13 percent predict an increase of that magnitude (Exhibit 17). Respondents at larger organizations are more likely than those at smaller ones to expect an enterprise-wide AI-related reduction in workforce size, while AI high performers are more likely than others are to expect a meaningful change, either in the form of workforce reductions or increases.
Interesting to see companies vary in their est of how AI will impact workforce. A third expects reduction (but not much, about 3%), 13% an increase (AI related hiring), 43% no change.
with nearly one-third of all respondents reporting consequences stemming from AI inaccuracy (Exhibit 19).
A third of respondents admit they've seen 'at least once' negative consequences of inaccurate output. That sounds low, as 100% will have been given hallucinations. So 1-in-3 doesn't catch them all before they run-up damage. (vgl Deloitte's work in Australia)
The online survey was in the field from June 25 to July 29, 2025, and garnered responses from 1,993 participants in 105 nations representing the full range of regions, industries, company sizes, functional specialties, and tenures. Thirty-eight percent of respondents say they work for organizations with more than $1 billion in annual revenues. To adjust for differences in response rates, the data are weighted by the contribution of each respondent’s nation to global GDP.
2k self selected respondents in 50% of nations. 4/10 are big corporates (over 1 billion USD annual revenue)
McKinsey is to the middle class what flesh-eating bacteria is to healthy tissue.
This is the pull quote maybe? :)
Das Handelsblatt hat be McKinsey eine Studie zu den Kosten der Energiewende in Deutschland in Auftrag gegeben. Danach ließen sich u.a. die Kosten bis 2035 um 100 Milliarden Euro reduzieren, wenn weniger auf Solar- und Windenergie und den dazu nötigen Ausbau der Stromnetze gesetzt würde und mehr auf Gaskraftwerke, die dann auf Wasserstoff umgerüstet werden können. Der Artikel berichtet nicht über Konsequenzen für die CO<sub>2</sub>-Bilanz. https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/milliarden-ersparnis-sind-die-ausgaben-fuer-die-energiewende-zu-hoch/100002547.html
after a year and a half there, I eventually understood that not only does McKinsey fail to make the world better—it often colludes with those who make the world worse.
that having visible skills-based pathways is helpful in their work as they assist workers in their communities through interventions such as job coaching and career development
Pathways aren't enough; people need Visible Pathways.
Colin D’Mello CTVNews. (2020, November 25). BREAKING: CTVNews has learned McKinsey & Company was paid $1.6million to help create the COVID-19 command tables, and $3.2 million to help with the school re-opening strategy. Https://t.co/F3FQtG8ftW #onpoli [Tweet]. @ColinDMello. https://twitter.com/ColinDMello/status/1331625704501424129
While about half of all work activities globally have the technical potential to be automated by adapting currently demonstrated technologies
1/2 of all work is redundant (note: not .5 of all jobs but rather of the tasks we on given jobs; also, this is total so not on average meaning that some jobs are 99% today and others are less but point remains that even a CEO's job has redundancy)