McKinsey & Company Hi guys, Help me choose an offer McK is offering me Senior Associate position compare to PL position from BCG.
I’m more inclined towards McK but getting lowballed in terms of role.
Kindly share your thoughts which one should I go for.
Currently M at EYP. TIA
McKinsey & Company Boston Consulting Group
Even better: ask BCG to make you join as a consultant with a guaranteed promotion after 3 months.
Firm will appreciate that you care to make it work and get a good landing, and you get to de-risk your offer (salary difference for 3 months is nothing in the grand scheme)
P.S. i am involved in recruiting and we usually propose it proactively to give people the right start when we see potential and want to make it a mutual safe bet
Ask you be staffed as C for the first case. It can work.
I lateralled to BCG as a PL and struggled a lot. Not because I couldn’t do the PL job but because the way I was project managing wasn’t the BCG ways and it took time for me to learn and for the partners to trust me. It worked out for me but it could have just easily gone the other way and I have seen way too many qualified managers struggle. Chances are you will too and may not survive.
Here is what I would do. I would ask McK if they could guarantee a promotion to EM within 3-6 months of joining and you will use this time to learn the McK ways of working. I would also ask for a joining bonus (half a year comp delta between EM and SA so you are made whole) so there is no comp gap. If they can make it happen, this is an attractive option that gives you enough time to learn the basics before you get to manage a team with an EM title. Your team will quickly figure out you don’t speak the same language and you need to depend on them to manage the senior expectations. You will feel undervalued and that will be manifested in ways that can harm your reputation fast.
If you have to choose between the two as is now, BCG is a superior option. Even if you don’t make it to next level, you get to leave as a PL.
Good luck
Coach
If you have faith in your abilities, go with the PL role at BCG.
If you want an em role at Mck, let them know you have a pl role at BCG. Likely, they will match.
I have seen more drown than float.
OP - what are you solving for? If it’s money, seems like it’s a wash? (As you said McK will go higher). Is it title? Longevity? Also, are you post MBA hire?
Thank you guys for your valuable feedback especially to all the BCG folks who came forward and shared their perspectives.
I’ve made up my decision after much deliberation that I’m going to join BCG as a PL however will asked them to staff me as a consultant for initial engagements till I get hang of BCG ways and style of working post which when I feel confident and ready will take up the PL role. I hope this should work and will give me enough time to navigate through my journey.
Once again appreciate everyone’s guidance 🙏🏻
Welcome!!
Coach
There’s no reason to lose a year tenure between McK and BCG
That being said, entering at PL will be tough as hell, so a year at McK first before becoming EM might help you ease into it
I think either way will have a learning curve and will most likely to go ahead with BCG who values me, but thanks for the heads up :)
BCG wouldn’t offer you the PL role if you weren’t ready for it. They only offer lateral moves and not usually a level up for anyone! Come join us :)
When you come in as a lateral PL at BCG you are always staffed in a C role until they feel confident you can take a PL role. They want you to succeed.
Not to discourage,would for sure go for higher comp. But coming in as a lateral PL at BCG could be really hard.
Completely agree.
But it's ways of working and learning the BCG norms that's tough. It's also just a pressure cooker environment that can sometimes expect perfection even when learning, which makes it hard. Also, As/Cs typically avoid laterals so may have hard time finding a good team.
Lateral PLs at BCG do have it rough, but you get time in the beginning to do the role of a Consultant so you can learn the ways of working. So if BCG hired you for this, then I would go for it, just know that you will have some challenges early on, but nothing you can’t overcome
The thing with manager roles at any of the firms is it’s hard to be amazing as a manager day 1 if it’s also day 1 at the firm. You will have 0 context or knowledge of how the firm works, thinks about solving problems, resources available to direct your team to, or what other leaders to reach out to for a given problem. We’ve had so many direct hire EMs that are performing abysmally because they don’t understand the work culture nuances or how to help their teams get the best answers in the most efficient manner so teams underperform despite working more overall hours.
Maybe the PL job at BCG works out and you would be 1 year ahead. But there’s higher risk of it not going stellarly because of the reasons I mentioned above. The lower risk, and slightly slower trajectory option, is to be a senior associate for 6-12 months and then become a manager and you can perform at your best. Plus if you are already managing you should have your tool kit built out pretty well so being a senior associate should be a breeze and you can spend your extra time relaxing or building your network.
Came in as an EH associate to McK. I trusted HR, note to self, don’t. First couple of months I had to work to learn the McK way, approach, tools, network, etc. Now it’s a super easy job. Boring actually.
There are no, “promote me in 6 months” guarantees. HR can say it, but if it’s not in writing, it didn’t happen. PL is the right choice OP. Your first couple of months you’re given a pass anyway as you’re still green. Once you learn the BCG way, then just carry on. Don’t let the McK prestige make you think twice. Both are great firms.
Coach
Always preferred BCG to McK but like BCG1 said, EM isn’t an easy role to immediately take on, but the comp is definitely nice. If you’re feeling ready to go then take PL, if not go McK.
lateral hires often struggle a lot before they learn the bcg way, especially at the PL level. No wonder McK wants people to learn the McK way
Let’s just say that I would rather pass up a good project than work with a brand new lateral hire PL 🤷♀️
Go with the PL role
^even better
It will be very tough to start as a PL and people will not want to work with you
Seriously? it's 2 years tenure and a huge difference in TC we're talking about here.
Mentor
If you can guarantee promotion at McK then I’d go for that. Realistically we just try to be mini McK so why not go for the real thing? Better integration at McK and spending time as an associate will be useful. Far more optionality (both domestic and global) as well
Faster time to partner as well so wouldn’t worry about waiting 3-6 months to get to EM.
Go with the higher comp!
Mentor
I was in the opposite situation!
There’s no guarantee even at the senior associate level. Take the PL role since it has more value when applying for roles post consulting. PL exits are already giving you 350-400 TC, if not more
Did you apply for EM or for Senior Associate position?