Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
how is it a "clever ploy" when associates leave in droves from Year 3 onwards
|
If I may proffer my opinion on this point, I think everything the Big4s do is carefully calibrated.
In my (possibly misguided) opinion, the Year 3 exodus is something the Big4s actually plan for - a calibrated trimming mechanism which prevents them from having to support a pool of increasingly expensive senior associates when much of the work can be handled by less experienced junior associates.
And as half the batch leaves, the senior associates who are left are more likely to stay because they see their competition thinning and their partnership prospects improving - these senior associates form the competent, supervisory mid-tier level which runs keeps the system running cheaply without the need for too much partner involvement.
Despite the shrinking gap in overall remuneration between the Big4s and the offshores, another 30-40% of the initial batch will eventually burn out and leave to go inhouse in Year 5 and year 7. The attrition pattern seems to follow a "radioactive half-life" of about 2-3 years. This leaves about 4-5 or so people to be made up in every batch at the end of the 7 year mark.
And of course, those who choose to go pay a painful price for their decision (3 months notice with no front-loading component, and possibly a clawback).
In light of the above, don't you think the Big4's are indeed being clever (though unconscionably so) about their remuneration structure?