This is a rerun of one part of a four part series. Here are all four.

1. http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N16/dubai.html 2. http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N17/dubai.html 3. http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N18/dubai.html 4. http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N19/dubai.html

Most severance packages include this sort of non-disparagement clause. It's not a huge impediment to story telling.

This is a corrosive practice that should not be socially unacceptable. It allows many people unfamiliar with the internals of an industry to live in a kind of "filter bubble."

There are many situations, organizations, or cultures where certain bad behaviours are an open secret, but largely unknown to anyone outside the context.

Disparagement tends to be a lose-lose situation. To drag someone down, you often have to sink lower than they are.

I found this story insightful about burnout. But, could care less that was at BCG. I prefer to cut and chose: either named positive feedback or anonymous negative feedback.

> To drag someone down, you often have to sink lower than they are.

We're not talking about person-to-person mud-slinging, here.

The author is performing a useful public service by explicitly identifying the consulting company. This kind of bad behaviour is endemic, but very easy to dismiss, without specifics.

BCG has 4.3 star rating on Glassdoor. I think BCG+Dubai is the problem. @sogen's link about Dubai is telling.

I don't see why Glassdoor ratings would be correlated with a company's ethics, in the real world.

It reminds me of this story - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-dark-side-of-d...

by the same guy who wrote this?? http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N7/yost.html?comments#comments