I have been looking at KPMG's annual report. What struck me almost immediately was this statement:
Could you trust a firm that said it wanted to dominate? I admit I couldn't. Maybe that's why I left 30 years ago.
I was also a little surprised to note that if social change is the goal then this is the only reference to that phrase in the document. The consequence was I felt domination the more powerful of the sentiments expressed. No wonder I felt a little spooked by this.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
If you turn to page 12, they explain what they mean by ‘dominate’.. which is, apparently, something about relevance and trust. I think they work from a different dictionary to the rest of us. I wouldn’t be spooked by anything though. It’s marketing guff, as ever these things are.
I prefer the plain English interpretation
Which most people will use
What does it say about the current political climate when KPMG can be so naked about their ambitions?
Thank you but no thanks, I don’t want KPMG to be an agent of social change!
I shudder to think what the social change part might mean, too.. Kinda like g bush seniors new world order..? Seems like quite an odd wording as people recently hammered over their antisocial business actions…
I wonder if a company so focused on corporate clients is capable of being embarrassed into better ” citizenship” what I mean is the star bucks of this world presumably CAN. Be affected by public opinion, in lieu of this, what, if anything can the little guys opinion or action mean in this other case..? Just wondering.. After all, maybe their ” distance ” from public opinion is a factor in their actions..?
Social change, I bet they ll be surprised if there ever IS any that is… Part of the problem, rings a bell..
Indeed -social change presumably means ‘more wealth syphoning from the community leaving the broad populace in a state of neo-feudal debt peonage!
I would trust a doctor that wants to dominate the world of cancer research and be the most prolific and successful researcher and practitioner in the world.
I would trust a lawyer who wants to dominate the world of commercial litigation, and be the most successful and effective litigator in the world.
I would trust a builder who wants to dominate the market of boutique housing development, and be the most successful and effective builder in the world.
What is it about success and ambition that turns you off?
So you trust monopoly power and the end of competition?
Interesting
I would trust a doctor that wants to be a world leader in the world of cancer research and be the most prolific and successful researcher and practitioner in the world.
I would trust a lawyer who wants to be a world leader in the world of commercial litigation, and be the most successful and effective litigator in the world.
I would trust a builder who wants to be a world leader in the market of boutique housing development, and be the most successful and effective builder in the world.
I’m all for ambition but I don’t trust anyone who wants to DOMINATE!
I wouldn’t worry. Kpmg have consistently demonstrated their ability to mismanage their business, from US tax shelter prosecutions to failed Eu mergers, to rounds of redundancies by voicemail and back to recruiting again
They couldn’t dominate a paper bag
I was at a conference organised by the ICAEW last Friday at which there was a speaker from the recruitment dept of KPMG. He stated that Credit for Prior Learning (exemptions for professional exams for studsents with relevant degrees) would become redundant because students could study ‘bespoke’ degrees, i.e. ones set up in partnership with KPMG, thereby completely capturing HE.
That’s domination
Make sure they don’t know how to think any other way for a start