Slow day in the office, thought I'd wax pedantic. I read a lot of folks on here trying to avoid xyz industry or city to avoid getting "pigeonholed". They seem to think that maintaining generalist status as long as possible (i.e. maintaining optionality) is the end-all-be-all goal of a successful career. Seems to me like a natural extension of a tech-high generation -- including me -- that fears commitment like getting married, having kids, buying a house... or picking a specialization.
From my perspective, as someone who jumped headfirst into one of these "pigeonhole" industries, I'm so grateful I did. While my peers are still surface level across multiple industries, I have several years of knowledge that helps differentiate me. And to the extent I can be the very best [RE, O&G, mining, specialty finance] analyst out there, I feel like I'd be competitive for the remaining seats if my industry has layoffs.
Just something to think about. Maybe commitment isn't all bad...
I 110% agree, I wish that I had pigeonholed myself quickly. Way easier to get top ratings, expert status, raises, promotions, etc. when you're an expert in your field of consulting. Even from MBB! I wish I had found out about and jumped into the commercial strategy practice earlier and stuck with it longer. Tons of fun, sales people rock, and I would have gained an incredible skillset doing something I loved.
I'm in PE now so that didn't quite stick, but still.
Also wish I had stuck with cases for a long time.
i'm afraid of commitment
For me it stems from the idea that specialization means loss of optionality and freedom. Though specialization is a competitive advantage as you’ve said. Personally I’m still trying to figure out what it is I actually want to commit to. Granted I’m an incoming first year analyst so I’m not worried quite yet.
I'd argue Healthcare is an exception. A lot of funds want medical science backgrounds for mid-level and/or more senior roles.
Wish I can get out of healthcare ASAP.
For those who think you can just work on medical services and/or med tech, that's usually not THAT feasible. Both devices and biotech require strong scientific knowledge.
Both generalizing and specializing have advantages. For me and many others, being able to dip my toes in many things keeps life interesting. Being able to know enough about many fields allows you to manage and communicate with many different team members and stakeholders, which is important to running a work project. Rotating through many opportunities gives you the opportunity to bring fresh perspectives and think strategically and out of the box.
But developing subject matter expertise is important to actually do the work of a firm. Talented oldheads in niches keep every company in America going. I think if you want to stay an individual contributor rather than manage (trying to keep this career agnostic), you need to either be a great salesman or a true expert to make the big bucks.
I think you guys are all looking at this the wrong way. You have identified the wrong "pigeonhole". Here's my take:
A company (any company, any industry, doesn't matter) has chiefs (management) and indians (associates and analysts). The hardest pigeonhole to break is going from indian to chief and becoming a people manager. I would posit that this is especially true in consulting (all kinds) since being an indian makes you a valuable resource (e.g. billable). How do you become such a deeply-technical and skilled individual (or your definition of a pigeonhole) and then convince someone that you're ready for management for that next step in your career? That is a very, very hard thing to do, extremely difficult to break out of that pigeonhole. You'll have a ton of skills but little experience leading large teams and you'll also be asking to lower your utilization rate for the company . . . very little incentive exists to make you a manager at that point.
So the trick is to find a role where you're happy and can specialize while at the same time develop leadership skills that are going to help you in later parts of your career. Otherwise you'll always just be a billable asset and that is the worst pigeonhole to be in.
I dont think this is completely wrong, but I think you underestimate that top consulting firms want to retain their top talent, and come to the realization that high performers want to get into a managerial role asap. Top junior consultants have outperformed their peers their entire lives, they arent about to take their foot off the gas as 25-28. Most good consulting firms pair every consultant with an internal manager who helps you identify when youre ready to make that jump, and to identify opportunities to do so. Additionally, your immediate project teams will recognize when you are nearing the next level, and will give you flex opportunities to take on more responsibility and leadership. These opportunities start as early on as one year out of UG.
Additionally, even when you move to the sales side, you still generate revenue for the firm by being billable. You dont immediately go from work horse to pure oversight, the transition is gradual, and at the beginning you are mostly still a work horse. Managing and selling work start as early as at the consultant / senior consultant level and your success and capabilities determine your timeline to a managerial role.
I think you are taking SPYShorts point, chewing it up, and spitting out a completely different perspective. Of course, nothing wrong with it, but it doesnt really add or detract from OPs point.
OPs thesis is find an industry and stick to it as early as possible to develop the deepest level of knowledge and expertise, which will allow you to be sought after within that niche more rapidly than your industry agnostic collogues.
"Retain top talent" can mean many things. In consulting it usually means sales. It's no secret that you have to bring in new business to keep advancing in consulting. Why? Well because you need to pay for yourself and the utilization rate that the company is no longer getting from you. That's how you break out of the pigeonhole you are most certainly in. So yes, they will "retain" you . . . as long as you sell and you no longer "lose" money for the company. Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not. But I can assure you there is a pigeonhole there.
As for addressing the OP - I think my statement does. The question is not which city to move into to avoid pigeonholes. The question is around how you navigate your own career choices (I mean roles not locations) to set yourself up for the steps you want to take 10-15 years from now.
Tenetur dignissimos voluptatum in non a veniam rerum. Quia asperiores earum deleniti id atque reprehenderit nihil. Voluptas quos quos recusandae maiores non qui quae. Delectus saepe architecto reprehenderit incidunt assumenda consectetur dolor. Dignissimos vel similique tempora. Placeat ipsum non suscipit vero quia accusamus est.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...