Related Posts
Nagarro or accenture?
More Posts
Does Deloitte provide cab facility?
The turkeys nest is where you find inspiration
How was your tax season?
Additional Posts in Consulting
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Had offers at both, chose McK. Know people at both, did really extensive research as well. Here is why I chose McK.
1) Staffing: McKinsey has global staffing BCG has regional, meaning I can much more easily work on another coast or in another country than a BCGer - in fact I’ve done both of those many times and it is just as easy as being staffed in my local city. This also adds a second benefit in my opinion which is that because it is so easy for me to choose any study anywhere, managers/partners are forced to be really good to their junior people because it is so easy to select against them.
2) Promo Speed: We get promoted faster from the undergrad level (BA—>EM in ~2.5 years vs A—>PL in ~4 years), and there’s also a small differential in path to equity partner (BCG you have to do principal —> partner —> MDP vs McK just AP —> Partner, which is a roughly 6 month difference in average timing). So, overall 2 years average faster path to partner at McK (~7 years vs ~9 years)
3) Firm Thought Leadership: this is more subjective, but I have close friends at BCG and we compare notes and it appears our supporting resources/thought leadership is much better.
4) Brand: just overall a tad better, no argument there obv
5)Less commercial emphasis: McK has a super strict anti-selling culture, the word “sell” itself is taboo here, whereas BCG is much more focused on “how much meat you bring to the table.” Not super important to everyone but I appreciate this.
6)Firm revenue composition: we have conscientiously trended less deep into the realm of PMO/implementation than BCG has, and that might be noteworthy for someone who is really interested in strategy. When we do, I tend to think we also silo it away from our core consulting team better.
In terms of cons for McK:
1) Amount of work: I tend to think we work ~a little~ harder but it isn’t massive, it’s only really super noticeable compared to my friends in GP at Bain.
2) Hardos: It seems like we overall are the place to go for the extreme hardos who live and die by their work, which isn’t bad necessarily, but you can assume that more “chillers” would prefer Bain over us and thus go there, and the inverse for hardos. I don’t mind at all and think 95%+ of us are super friendly, but worth noting.
I agree more with B4, and in small parts with B2 - on pay transparency. Other than that, I don’t recognize any of the comments by B2. It appears like a different firm (and that’s not bad; I just don’t recognize any to be accurate in my experience). But also acknowledge that the true picture is the median of our collective experiences. So none of us is wrong. I would not even know “eat what you kill” as an MBB expression so I am surprised at this usage.
One tidbit to add to get things started:
At McKinsey, you need to network for your own engagement. Not so at BCG
Source: idk, I don't work at either. Just what I've heard from the people I've talked to at both
It’s part of the “preference-based staffing model”
Chief
Well one sells opioids and the other one is full of nerds
Just wanted to comment on regional vs global staffing. As a former MBB myself, this is a topic that makes sence to adress more holistically than just based on the fact "which countries do I want to see". Typically your projects are your chance to position yourself with partners you work with, so ensure that those partners who are relevant to your development process are covered
Never worked at McK, but from the people I know who did those differences are relatively marginal compared to office culture and home city.
If you have offers from both I'd say you should either optimize for 1) pathing for a specific exit, or 2) who you vibed with more in interviews.
I’d be curious in this as well