All, It has been awhile. I did an Q&A quite a long time ago ("Ask me anything: Project Leader/Engagement Manager/Case Team Leader at MBB") and predictably, a lot has changed. I left McKinsey as an EM and am now happily employed at a larger/growing startup. So I thought I would create another Q&A, as I'm now a bit more free to talk about my experience in consulting and my advice on recruiting. So please fire away, but please respect the following rules: - Please don't ask a question that's been asked in the thread before - Please don't ask me to divulge confidential information about McKinsey's recruiting process. Similarly, I will likely choose to be vague about some details of my McKinsey tenure for the sake of anonymity - If you have more specific questions about your individual candidacy or have things that are better discussed privately, please send me a PM.
Lastly, please give me time to respond; I'll do the best I can! All the best! Karl Mod Note (Andy): This Q&A originally went up in January but @karl_pilkington" told me he's still able to take questions, so fire away!
Good question. When I look back, I do see a strong linkage between what is helping me be successful now and what I learned / was successful at when I was at McK.
When you boil down to a very simple level, the big skill buckets at McK were 1) Problem solving ability and 2) Leadership.
1) This isn't just cognitive ability. This is how you deconstruct a problem, structure your thinking, gather and understand data, then package and present your ideas in a coherent story. What I wish I did more of prior to McK was not just calculating numbers, but questioning them and thinking about what those numbers were really saying. Breaking apart a problem isn't memorizing frameworks - it is how you think. Practice it. Then it's about storytelling. How would you explain to your grandma why you think company x will succeed or not?
2) I won't even try to solve this one, but my advice is to know yourself. Everyone has different leadership styles and there are different avenues to being a successful leader. Find yours and double down on it. Be introspective and learn to change and adjust.
1) On the whole, no. I think I did pretty well for myself there - I was an above average but not distinctive performer and got good work. However, I do think that I should have done a better job networking and playing the politics. Much of the job early on as an Associate is about building the skillset, but the smart ones know how to play the networking and politics from day 1. I wasn't one of those, and when I hit EM it made things harder for me. I did good work and was known as a good team leader, but that ceases to be enough once you are a mid-tenured EM. Then it is almost entirely about positioning yourself to get designated as an AP, then elected as a Partner. To be blunt, that's mostly politics.
2) Two years 3) See my comments on #1. I wanted the project mgmt, executive exposure, analytical skills, storytelling, etc. that is required to be a good EM, but I found the politics very unappealing. Some may disagree (probably disproportionally those who are AP's or Partners) but I saw the AP role as basically cranking out LOP's at your "core" clients, being your "supporters" bitch, and "building a knowledge base" to form the key pillars of your "program". Don't get me wrong - this is the way things are, and I'm not suggesting that they change it. It's clearly working. But there's a reason why a lot of people don't see that making a push for Partner is for them.
I did not do well in college due to health issues, I graduated with a 3.2 GPA in the end in Economics with a minor in Spanish after 1 year of study delay (final year was a 4.0 straight). I am currently 23.
Since starting college I wanted to go into consultancy but got very distracted by things going on in life with regards to health and family.
I tried applying to even the most basic events organized by McKinsey, Bain, BCG, Oliver Wyman and Roland Berger, all have been unsuccesful. I agree with their selection (since they only see the paper), however I personally believe that I am a good fit. Of course I can not prove this unless I actually meet people, or show this on paper (grades,ECs, etc).
I am afraid that if I take a job that is currently suitable with my profile, that I will regret it for the rest of my life since I do not live up to my potential (I think).
For that reason I would like to do another bachelor degree, preferably in AI, math or physics (I would love to learn more about), however at the moment I would still love to end up working as a top consultant. Then develop myself more in leadership in my university and internships, all of which I had not done during my college years.
Would you think this idea is absurd? As in even if I graduate with a 4.0, good internships and ECs, I still will not make it to my goal as working for McKinsey, BCG, Bain, or those that come close to it? Because they will see it as a weakness (''failing'' the first time).
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your reply. I tried emailing the recruitment of several companies organizing these events as well as admission offices of business schools, but out of 300 carefully written and polite emailsI only recevied a handful of replies.
I have been offered jobs at local and unknown consultancy firms, backoffice accounting roles at larger firms (such as IBM), ETF trader. I realize I should be happy with those offers (its something), but I do not see how they will truly develop me in the long run. Nor do I think they help me getting into business school as no one has ever heard of these.
Most other companies here require a masters degree, but the problems I face are:
Besides all that, and job prospects, I sometimes just feel not having challenged myself enough in college and I feel this hunger on an intellectual level to learn more. But then again if someone would offer me a a really interesting job I would probably take that over feeding my ''hunger'' in an academic setting.
1) I think it is very easy to look at your peers and be a bit in awe. You will be working with people that have done some incredible things in their careers and look ridiculously impressive on paper. But the sooner you get past the intimidation that comes with that, the better off you will be. Quite simply, in your first 9 months, focus solely on doing good work. Learn the Associate toolkit and get feedback and help from your EM to strengthen it. Take initiative - don't just sit back and wait to be asked, but be proactive. Do whatever you can to help the team push their collective thinking - share your opinion. Question things. Be confident and assertive without being arrogant or pushy. I think success as an Asc is the sum of doing a lot of these things right (and learning those things fast)
2) For me, average was fly to the client super early Monday AM, work till Thursday on average 8 or 9am to 7pm from the client site, break for dinner/workout, then work in the hotel until 11 or midnight. Fly home Thursday late afternoon or evening depending where I was. 9-5 day in the office or at home on Friday. No weekend work. Weekend was indeed abnormal in my 4 years with McK. But feel free to PM me if you want more info on this - lifestyle tends to vary across offices, industries, type of study, etc.
Some things I didn't like: - People constantly trumpeting their contributions to the office....if you organized a sunday brunch with colleagues you would take a picture of the group then email it to the entire office and talk about how wonderful your event was at bringing your class together for some fun. That's slightly exaggerated but it happens a lot - Being expected to spend a lot of non-study time helping "supporters" with "client development", which I basically saw as bitch work on proposals for Partners who may or may not help you out later down the line. And when I needed some help later down the line, those folks didn't pick up the phone - Being pressured to take a bad study with horrible travel to the middle of buttfuck nowhere for 4 months because it would "generate stronger support" and "show some sparkle" in a functional area that I was supposedly known for. This is a lot of why I left - the work and industries people wanted me to double down on were not something I was interested in at all
In short, the politics is all about making the Partners in your office want to "support", ie staff you and fight for you to be moved up to the next level. You can get there a lot of different ways, and doing the best work isn't necessarily the only way, nor is it foolproof.
Let's be VERY CLEAR - this sort of politics is not exclusive to McK. At McK it is sometimes better and sometimes worse than in other places. I deal with politics in my current role. But in order to want to play the game and position yourself for success, you have to want the end goal. At McK, I did not want the end goal. So playing the game for something I did not want was clearly not an option. And I did very well there so it was quite easy to leave for a great job.
You should be focused on how to get the job next time around vs gauging how many people were put into an ambiguous "keep in touch" bucket. You have work to do. That's all you need to know.
This isn't a fraternity pledge process. I think it is a fair question, and if you don't know the answer, then say so!
Message from Karl
All - I am happy to continue to answer questions here and for several of you, on PM. I believe it to be important to provide balanced, honest, and hopefully useful advice to you all.
If you have benefitted from this information or would like to say "thanks" in a way that would mean a lot to me, please consider the following:
Last week, Professor Bill Klug was senselessly killed in his office at UCLA (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ucla-klug-20160602-snap-sto…). He leaves behind a wife and two children, and by all accounts was a loving, kind mentor to his students and friends.
UCLA has established a fund to support his family (http://giveto.ucla.edu/fund/klug-family-support-fund/ )
I will be making a donation. NO OBLIGATION, but if you feel compelled to do so also, I would personally be grateful.
Back to regularly scheduled programming.
I can't speak to big 4/atk/rb, but the general assumption is that MBB's get more of the shorter term strategy stuff and "bet the company" questions whereas you have more longer term support efforts at the others, specifically big 4. ATK, RB, etc. have strong reputations and will get a share of the strategy work as well.
A crude analogy:
MBB tells your CEO you really need to be in the cruise ship business and why MBB tells you what markets, how many ships, and the business case Your CEO signs off and MBB gives you a plan for how to go do it MBB or Tier 2 firm comes in and tells you what to sell on your ship, for how much, and how to yield manage and optimize your revenue from the ship Big 4 comes in and sets up the software implementation, operations, accounting/finance, staffing and labor, etc for your ship and helps you roll it out for the next year Cruise ship industry crashes You call MBB again to ask them what to do.