Related Posts
Coach
Additional Posts in Partner One
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
That was just a preview…
Sign Up to see all discussions
Sign Up to see all discussions
- Discover what it’s like to work at companies from real professionals
- Get candid advice from people in your field in a safe space
- Chat and network with other professionals in your field
Sign up in seconds to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
"" is an unusual email domain. If correct, please proceed to the next step
Messaging rates may apply
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Share
Embed this post
Copy and paste embed code on your site
Preview
Download the
Fishbowl app
Scan your QR code to download
Fishbowl app on your mobile
Sign up for free to view this conversation on Fishbowl
Sign up for free to continue using Fishbowl
Messaging rates may apply
Very rare business cases for SM-> PP. They want a 4:1 ratio of MD to PP. if you deliver PP numbers as a MD for 2-3 years, then you might be able to make it. They want PP performance without having to share in profits for 2-3 years. They also increase your Revenue and Sales targets 20-25% each year, so constant sliding scale with no upside benefit. MD is a glorified delivery SM.
With the exception that you are not stuck at SM for 6-8 years and now additionally having a backlog of folks in the partner pipeline that didn’t make its the last few years being downgraded to MD path.
Mentor
This is more about elevating the role of MDs and more openness about path to partnership vs. destination. There won’t be a hard requirement but heavier scrutiny going forward for SMs->MDs and MDs->PPs and SMs->PPs - which was always the case in awful markets like this one. All PPMDs have to be accretive to our business.
And it’s not addressing a key issue which is not that MDs aren’t performing to their expectations, it’s that Partners are operating more like MDs and not selling/growing the business. Now you have this Expanded MD role that is supposed to pick up the slack for what partners should be doing? Seems the current partnership needs reset based on their actual role.
Ey partner here. It is not a requirement. Some practices are focused on making it such more than others, but it not a requirement.
Regardless, essentially this would (1)extend the number of years to partner - not a a terrible thing in terms of readiness and performance for most people to be honest, and (2) help us optimize the PP to MD ratio and DIPP.
Expectations have changed dramatically since when I made it a decade ago. Anecdotally, I see very few people who are ready after 6-8 years as an SM, and even fewer who can actually meet expectations of that level after they make it. This safeguards both the candidates as they have longer runway and “lighter” expectations, and the partnership as it gives us the opportunity to see consistency while dealing with the significant ambiguity that level brings. At the same time, I’m a firm believer that it will not stop anyone who’s truly ready and is performing at the level to jump directly to PP from SM from making it.
All that said, in order for this to work, clarity on expectations and KPIs between levels would be key, as would making sure comp is appropriately aligned so we don’t lose top talent.
There’s a difference between rewarding tenure and moving the goal posts. Pretty much every partner these days acknowledges they wouldn’t have made it when they did if they were up today. I’ll be honest that I lack visibility but it feels to me like a big part of the problem is that we tolerate way too much low margin work in the name of chasing top line growth. Why isn’t there more focus on that rather than cost cutting at the lower ranks? As a high performer in a practice that is growing wildly and is up for partner in the next year it’s really concerning that the senior partner group seems fine with spending our culture, talent and goodwill by socializing the losses of underperforming groups. I’m not interested in getting to equity just to be dragged down into a hole I didn’t dig.
I keep hearing people mention this. Where has the information roll out been on this? I hadn’t seen anything official from firm
Tax had a few webcasts on this Career Journey back in very early 2025.
Because they need larger and larger books of business to meet the constant YoY growth targets
What’s this new requirement?
👀
EY adding an MD stop before partner now, too? Makes sense to me
If that's the case, I wonder what happens to those promoted to MD/ED over the last several years and were told MD/ED was a "destination" role. Is there going to be two classes of MD/ED, those where it is a destination and those where it's a prerequisite to partner/principal? And if so, will that be clearly communicated?
I haven't had the MD meeting yet. Are they adding MD as a stop for all professionals?
If you hear EY leadership speaking, no, if you know people telling you the truth, for most folks yes
I have been hearing this. Is that true ? MD being a mandatory stop en route to PP
This is just for non audit businesses, correct?
I could see it applying to the vast majority of audit as well outside of listed/public entities.
I’m so glad I turned down the MD offer from EY.
To do what. Seems odd since you only get the offer a few months before making it. Why not level up for free
Wasn’t the Associate Partner level the same?
1. James T., USA (PayPal Account)
“Within 30 minutes of ordering a U.S. business PayPal account from Egsmmit.com, I received delivery. The account was fully verified, accepted by Stripe, and worked flawlessly right away. Their process was fast, reliable, and transparent. The professionalism and quality of the account surpassed expectations—highly recommended!”