????華爾街的游街活動在繼續(xù)。上周三上午，咨詢巨頭麥肯錫公司（McKinsey & Company）前董事總經(jīng)理、62歲的拉雅?古普塔向聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局（FBI）自首。他將面臨內(nèi)幕交易指控。具體地說，聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局指控古普塔在擔(dān)任高盛集團（Goldman Sachs）董事期間向前對沖基金經(jīng)理人拉吉?拉賈拉特南非法傳遞內(nèi)幕信息。后者已于本月初被判處11年監(jiān)禁。

????也是周三，美國紐約南區(qū)檢察官普利特?巴拉拉宣布了6項針對這位前咨詢業(yè)明星的指控，而證券交易委員會（SEC）則重啟了一樁此前已撤銷的民事訴訟案。針對古普塔的這些指控意味著世界上兩大卓有影響的機構(gòu)——麥肯錫公司和高盛集團——即將遭遇又一輪譴責(zé)浪潮。

????傳媒界的反銀行陣營一直在關(guān)注高盛集團在此案中扮演的角色，希望這則消息能夠抹黑這家華爾街巨頭的形象。對不起，大伙，但這種情況不可能出現(xiàn)。作為一位非執(zhí)行董事，古普塔僅僅是高盛集團的一位外部顧問而已。他涉嫌向其斯里蘭卡朋友拉賈拉特南出售公司機密一事根本不能說明高盛銀行家的任何問題，頂多表明他們?yōu)楦呤⒍聲翦e了人。

????此外，麥肯錫“遭殃”也令一些人有點幸災(zāi)樂禍。如果說高盛集團帶著一股充滿銅臭的囂張氣焰，麥肯錫公司則讓人感到一種智識的傲慢——后者引發(fā)粗俗反應(yīng)的能力跟前者不分伯仲。麥肯錫公司的手下敗將、抑或其著名的裁員建議的受害者正在興高采烈地揣度這則丑聞將給這家富有傳奇色彩的咨詢公司帶來怎樣的影響。

????簡而言之: 影響了了。過去一年和今年前半年，我一直在為關(guān)于麥肯錫的新書【我這本書將于2013年春天由西蒙舒斯特公司（Simon & Schuster）出版】做調(diào)研工作。在此期間，就古普塔丑聞一事，我采訪了麥肯錫公司數(shù)十位現(xiàn)任及前任咨詢師。他們感到羞愧，那是一定的。但他們最重要的資產(chǎn)，即客戶，卻對此事表示理解。公司生意并未受到任何影響。

????實際上，麥肯錫對客戶心理的掌控力之強讓人費解。去年初，咨詢師阿尼爾?庫馬爾（古普塔的一位助手）承認(rèn)他曾把麥肯錫公司的客戶資料出售給拉賈拉特南，你或許會認(rèn)為該公司將因此損失大批客戶。但事實并非如此。許多信息被庫馬爾賣掉的公司現(xiàn)在依然是麥肯錫的客戶。

????在一次談話中，一位曾任職于麥肯錫、現(xiàn)在華爾街一家大機構(gòu)擔(dān)任高管的人士對我說，古普塔丑聞對麥肯錫最大的沖擊在于該公司自身的精神層面。他說得對——很少有公司像麥肯錫那樣，跟員工自身形象如此緊密地交織在一起。這位前領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人極有可能擯棄了一切為麥肯錫咨詢師所珍視的價值理念，這一事實已經(jīng)促使公司內(nèi)部進行自我反省。但隨便問一位客戶的CEO，他很可能會告訴你：每位CEO晚上睡覺的時候都在擔(dān)心公司內(nèi)部出現(xiàn)害群之馬——不管它指的是一位流氓交易員，還是一位流氓咨詢師。但只要它僅僅是一個流氓，而非系統(tǒng)性的文化問題，其造成的反應(yīng)極有可能是憐憫，而非憤怒。

????The perp walks continue. This morning, 62-year old Rajat Gupta, the former managing director of consulting powerhouse McKinsey & Company, turned himself into the FBI to face insider trading charges. Specifically, the feds allege that Gupta, in his role as a board member of Goldman Sachs, illegally passed on inside information to Raj Rajaratnam, a former hedge fund manager who was sentenced to 11 years in prison earlier this month.

????Also this morning, Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced a six-count indictment against the former consulting luminary, while the SEC reinstituted a civil case it had previously dropped. The charges against Gupta mean that the reputations of two of the most influential firms in the world—McKinsey and Goldman Sachs—are up for another of their periodic rakings over the coals.

????The anti-banking contingent of the media has focused on the "involvement" of Goldman Sachs (GS) in this case, with the hope that somehow this news tarnishes the Wall Street titan. Sorry folks, but that's unlikely. As a non-executive board member, Gupta was nothing but an outside advisor to Goldman, and his possibly having sold their secrets to his Sri Lankan pal Rajaratnam says nothing whatsoever about the bankers, except that they clearly picked the wrong man for their board.

????Then there are those enjoying a little schadenfreude at McKinsey's expense. If Goldman reeks of moneyed arrogance, McKinsey reeks of intellectual arrogance—the latter capable of producing just as visceral a response as the former. Those who have competed unsuccessfully against McKinsey or perhaps been a victim of its well-known downsizing advice have been licking their chops at just what this means for the fabled consultancy itself.

????Short answer: Not much. While researching my upcoming book on McKinsey—to be published by Simon & Schuster in spring 2013—I have spoken to several dozen of the firm's current and former consultants over the past year-and-a-half about the whole Gupta mess. They're mortified, to be sure. But their most valuable asset—their client list—has been sympathetic. Business hasn't suffered at all.

????McKinsey's psychological hold on its clients actually beggars belief. When consultant Anil Kumar—a Gupta protégé—pled guilty to actually selling McKinsey client information to Rajaratnam early last year, you might have expected the firm to lose a significant swath of their clientele. Not so. The firm still counts as clients a number of companies whose information Kumar was selling.

????In a conversation I had with a McKinsey alum who is now a high-level executive at one of Wall Street's largest players, he suggested that the biggest fallout vis-à-vis McKinsey from the Gupta debacle would be to the firm's own psyche. And he's right—there are few firms that become as intertwined with their employees' self-image as McKinsey, and the fact that one of its former leaders has quite possibly repudiated every important value a McKinsey consultant holds dear has caused internal soul-searching. Ask a client's CEO, though, and he will likely tell you this: every CEO goes to bed at night worrying about a bad apple in their ranks—be it a rogue trader or a rogue consultant. As long as it's just a rogue, though, and not a systemic cultural issue, then the response is far more likely to be pity than anger.