Skip to content

Posts from the ‘Experienced’ Category

An Experienced IT Professional Comments on Our Post about moving to BBM

I thought of putting together this post to help other relatively experienced and older candidates wishing to make a switch to management consulting.

As a former Technology implementation consultant having spent about 7 years initially in the technology domain my work involved implementing many packaged solutions – commonly termed as COTS – Commercial Off The Shelf software.

Most of these implementations were in fact a result of management consulting work streams although it was not always apparent. Read more

Monitor admits to assisting with the doctoral thesis for the son of a client – Muammar Qaddafi

The leader de facto of Libya, Muammar al-Gaddafi.

Image via Wikipedia

On Friday the New York Times reported the following passage buried deeply within an article about the scandal which recently engulfed the London School of Economics.

“The inquiry the university announced Friday is also expected to examine accusations that portions of Mr. Qaddafi’s 2007 doctoral dissertation may have been plagiarized or ghost-written.

On Thursday, the consulting firm Monitor Group, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, acknowledged in a statement that part of the work for which it had been paid a fee of $250,000 a month by the Libyan government included helping Mr. Qaddafi with his dissertation.”

In previous articles we have called out Monitor for misrepresenting itself and questioned its ethics. Peter Walsh, Monitor’s Global Head of Marketing, responded to our article personally and tried to deflect the criticism. Then, like now, we did not feel our concerns were adequately addressed bar cosmetic changes to the website. At the time we raised the following fundamental issue: If Monitor was allowing such inaccuracies on their highly visible website, what was happening in parts of the company hidden from scrutiny? The latest scandal paints a worrying picture to the possibilities.

Monitor Company needs to be clearer about their involvement. They obviously felt greater information about their retainer was needed and therefore issued the statement above. Therefore, they cannot now claim client confidentiality and refuse more information. They have already breached this. Withholding further information only protects them – not their client.

Here are the parts requiring clarity:

  • The phrase “part of the work” is vague. Was it $10,000 or even $200,000 a week of the entire retainer? What was the rest of the work?
  • How long was the retainer? If it was $200,000 a week over, let’s say, 10 week’s that works out to a whopping $2,000,000. You can buy a lot for this amount.
  • They need to define “helping”. Did they write the work for him?

Now here are some of the problems irrespective of Monitors defence. Whether the final figure is $500,000 or $2,000,000 is not really relevant. Prominent ghost-writers earn far less to produce complete pieces of work. Gaddafi must have received lots of help for that amount of money. It is really hard to imagine them doing anything less than writing substantial parts of the thesis.

What about the internal processes within Monitor. It would appear a partner would have approved the work knowing full well that his team of consultants were working on someone’s doctoral thesis. If he did not know, then why is a partner approving the work? That means an equity partner knowingly approved this, or work is being approved at Monitor without proper vetting and checks in place. Both are worrying scenarios. What about the checking and vetting of the draft and final work. Equity partners rarely have time to do this. So the work would have been delegated to a non-equity partner or manager. They would have to have been explained the context, as in preparing this for Gaddafi’s thesis, and checked the work. That means more than a few people knew about this. Yet, no one thought it was wrong! No one stepped forward and certainly no equity partner said it was unethical to do this. Everyone merrily went along.

It is also clear to see why Monitor would have grouped this into a broader set of work. Imagine raising an invoice with the description “Helping with doctoral thesis.” That would have set off alarm bells in the finance department and the invoice would have likely arrived at a compliance committee. This implies the team behind the work likely knew what they were doing was not ethical but decided to proceed anyway.

We have always said that management consulting is about ethics and values. It is not about intellect only. It is worrying that Monitor would have allowed this to happen – most likely in the hopes of winning lucrative government work in Libya. Brilliant consultants without values are a scandal in the making. Monitor has proven that today.

We hope Monitor releases more information and fixes the deep and persistent problems apparently present in its systems. It owes as much to aspiring consultants who have unanswered questions.

Former McKinsey Managing Partner – Rajat Gupta – Accused of Insider Trading

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed civil charges against a former director of Goldman Sachs and Procter & Gamble, accusing him of passing illegal tips about those companies to Raj Rajaratnam, the hedge fund manager set to go on trial next week for insider trading.

The former director, Rajat K. Gupta, is the highest-profile business executive charged by the government in its sweeping investigation into insider trading on Wall Street. As a longtime senior executive at McKinsey & Company, the most influential management consulting firm, Mr. Gupta counted as friends and associates some of the most powerful people in business. He ran McKinsey from 1994 to 2003.

In comparison, many of the defendants earlier charged with insider trading by the government were junior traders and lawyers or mid-level executives. Over the past 18 months, federal prosecutors in Manhattan have charged 46 people with insider trading; of those, 29 have pleaded guilty.

But the S.E.C.’s civil case against Mr. Gupta brings the government’s inquiry into a more rarefied air, reaching into the most elite boardrooms of corporate America.

It perhaps most acutely stings Goldman, which has had at least three run-ins with the S.E.C. over the past year. Last summer, it struck a $550 million settlement with the agency over its sale of a complex mortgage investment without admitting or denying wrongdoing. And earlier this year it canceled an opportunity for its clients to invest in Facebook because of worries that the publicity surrounding deal could violate S.E.C. rules.

The S.E.C. case ties Mr. Gupta to Mr. Rajaratnam, the Sri Lankan-born billionaire hedge fund manager at the center of the government’s insider trading inquiry. Mr. Rajaratnam, who is fighting the criminal charges brought against him, is set to go on trial next Tuesday.

Among the tips that the S.E.C. says Mr. Gupta provided to Mr. Rajaratnam was word that Warren E. Buffett would invest $5 billion in Goldman Sachs in September 2008 as the financial crisis raged. That information, the S.E.C. says, generated “illicit profits and loss avoidance of more than $17 million” for various Galleon funds.

Mr. Gupta is also accused of disclosing to Mr. Rajaratnam information about Procter & Gamble’s 2008 fourth-quarter results on the eve of their release.

The S.E.C. in its filing recounts a number of phone calls between Mr. Gupta and Mr. Rajaratnam but does not detail the content of those conversations. In the criminal case against Mr. Rajaratnam, federal prosecutors have hundreds of hours of wiretapped phone conversations. Earlier this year, federal prosecutors reportedly notified Mr. Gupta that they had intercepted conversation between him and Mr. Rajaratnam.

Gary Naftalis, a lawyer for Mr. Gupta, said that the S.E.C. allegations were “totally baseless.”

“Mr. Gupta has done nothing wrong,” he said. “There is no allegation that Mr. Gupta traded in any of these securities or shared in any profits as part of any quid pro quo.”

Gary Naftalis, a lawyer for Mr. Gupta, said that the S.E.C. allegations were “totally baseless.”

“Mr. Gupta has done nothing wrong,” he said. “There is no allegation that Mr. Gupta traded in any of these securities or shared in any profits as part of any quid pro quo.”

Mr. Gupta, he noted, lost his entire $10 million investment in a fund managed by Mr. Rajratnam during the period of the S.E.C. allegations.

Mr. Gupta, 62, served on Goldman’s board from November 2006 to May 2010. On Tuesday, he resigned from the board of P.&G., which he joined in 2007. A company spokesman said he had resigned to prevent any distraction to the P.&G. board and the business.

“Directors who violate the sanctity of board room confidences for private gain will be held to account for their illegal actions,” said Robert Khuzami, director of the S.E.C. division of enforcement.

The S.E.C.’s accusations were outlined in an order that institutes administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Mr. Gupta.

The order provides some detail on what Goldman’s board was told in the chaotic wake of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. At a special meeting on Sunday, Sept. 21, 2008, the board was updated on the strategic alternatives the firm was considering and the strong net revenue Goldman was seeing even with financial markets in turmoil.

The S.E.C. says that the next morning Mr. Gupta and Mr. Rajaratnam “very likely had a telephone conversation,” noting that the Galleon Tech funds bought 80,000 shares of Goldman that day.

The following Tuesday afternoon, the board held a conference call to approve Mr. Buffett’s $5 billion preferred stock investment in Goldman.

“Immediately after disconnecting from the board call, Gupta called Rajaratnam from the same line, ” the S.E.C. order says. A minute later, Galleon Tech funds bought more than more than 175,000 additional shares of Goldman just before the market closed, the agency says.

After the close, Goldman announced the investment and its shares rallied the next day.

The Galleon funds netted a profit of more than $900,000 on the Goldman shares, the S.E.C. contends.

Mr. Gupta lead McKinsey from 1994 to 2003 and left as a partner in 2007. A former colleague at McKinsey, Anil Kumar, pleaded guilty to fraud charges related to the Galleon case.

Mr. Kumar admitted receiving $1.75 million in payments from Mr. Rajaratnam after providing information from 2004 to 2009.

(Taken from the New York Times)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49804468/S-E-C-Case-Against-Rajat-Gupta

 

Can you make the transition from the military to management consulting?

The West Point Class of 2008 toss their hats a...

Image via Wikipedia

Meet Eliot, an officer in the US military with 6 years experience including combat experience in Iraq, leading a combat platoon and economic planning team, and a subsequent deployment to the US Central Command where he was responsible for logistical planning for Middle Eastern supply lines. Aged 30, he has risen rapidly through the army and completed an undergraduate degree from a top private US university and two masters in engineering and economics from the same institute. Although up for a promotion soon, he now wants to make a transition to consulting. What should he do?

Two wars in Asia have made this profile and career decision point not too uncommon. We regularly receive requests from ambitious soldiers to review their profile and determine the best route for them to follow. What follows is a typical conversation we have and what we search for in the candidate before advising them. The key takeout is that not all profiles are the same, so it is almost impossible to give proper feedback from simply analysing a resume. We have to speak to the candidate.

Walk me through your resume and key accomplishments?

For whatever reason, we find that candidates do a rather poor job at reflecting their accomplishments in their resumes. This is more so for military profiles. We invariably find that candidate’s true accomplishments are usually better than those they have captured. That is usually because a candidate is trying to put down what he thinks the consulting firm is looking for versus what consulting firms are really looking for. Consulting firms are looking for evidence of leadership, analytical ability and strong evidence of a track record of excellence as well as the intellectual capability to manage the course load. Excellent career progression and significant milestones are also critical. However, most candidates capture these points in boring generalizations which are non-specific and lack any important detail whatsoever. A one page resume has so little room that every word must be carefully considered before it is inserted.

Why management consulting versus industry or investment banking?

Just about anyone who thinks they are smart believes they should be in management consulting. This rationale is not good enough. The candidate needs to show they really understand why they want to be in consulting and why they do not want to be in their current role or in another role. This shows us how much planning a candidate has done. Management consulting is about critical thinking and while the candidate may not have all the skills to have applied this process to their own careers, we would at least like to see the attempt. As mentioned many times before, candidates with a glamour view on consulting almost never enter our programme. We are looking for people who are serious about helping themselves grow and helping clients make tough choices.

What is your regional flexibility?

This is the key glamour question. Candidates who mention they are targeting London, New York, Paris or Milan set off so many warning bells I need to use ear plugs to block the warnings. The bottom-line is that the candidates must have very good reasons for choosing these offices. Why have their backgrounds, areas of interest and planned careers post-consulting made them chose these offices? Does their rationale make sense? Can they explain why they want to join these offices versus the Cleveland office, for example?

Would you prefer McKinsey, Bain or BCG?

Again, this is a test to see if they really understand the differences between the firms and also if they have at least thought about it. While most people would unlikely have excellent answers to these questions, we at least want to see they have thought about it. That is crucial. We can teach you the case approach and coach you on fit interviews, but we cannot teach you inquisitiveness.

How do you prefer communicating?

Communication is a major part of consulting. Polished consultants are skilled communicators. In this question we are really seeking self-awareness. Is the candidate aware of their communication skills? For example, is there a difference between the way they actually communicate and their self-assessment? We tend to find that the majority of candidates need lots of help in how to communicate. Through this process, we want to see just how much help is needed and if we can provide that help.

Have you done any preparation for the case interviews?

Actually, we prefer people who have done no training. It is a lot easier to teach you the correct approach than to “un teach” you bad habits. Yet, we play this by ear. If you have done preparation, we may do a mini-case to see how you fare. If you have the correct basic skills then that would count in your favour. There is no right answer here.

What is your plan in the military assuming you did not get into any firm?

Far too many people see consulting as a way out to kick-start a stalled career. If you have reached a ceiling in your career and see consulting as a “nice” way onto another career highway, you need to think very carefully if the reasons why your existing career has stalled will lead to a rejection at the consulting firms. If so, be careful. The time, effort and money to prepare for consulting interviews are not insignificant. Ensure you are realistic in your reasons for making the career switch.

Using these seven questions, we can easily assess the ability of a military candidate to succeed in our coaching programme and ultimately succeed in his/her interviews. Military candidates ultimately can make outstanding consultants if they are aware of their strengths and can harness these in interviews. There mix of operational and planning, if they have this, experiences are invaluable. If you have such a background, do not think you will be an unlikely fit at a top consulting firm. Each person is different and you may very well have what it takes.

 

All Hail to Dr Prof Roland Berger

The Financial Times reports that the founder of Roland Berger, Dr Prof Roland Berger, pulled the plug on the merger and has decided to invest E50M of his own money to fund the companies expansion. Such a magnanimous gesture when a buy-out would have made him so much richer.

We have it on several good sources that he was NOT happy about the talks and was willing to put in his own money to keep the firm independent. Three sources confirmed this.

My respect has come back and I am glad my incessant complaining to the partners worked. Not since Marvin Bower has the consulting industry seen someone of such vision.

Do experienced hires have a shot at getting into McKinsey, Bain, BCG or Roland Berger?

Scientists

We received the following query via email. We will answer this in an open forum on the site since we think it is relevant to many of our readers. You can apply our own process to determine your chances.

[To the candidate: We would need to see your résumé to accurately assess your chances.]

“You’ve got a very stimulating website which I’ve been directed to by one of the online “tutorials” on the YouTube site, which I also found exciting and well presented.

However, one small issue seems not to be addressed, as far as I’m aware, and that is the issue of experienced hires without a business/MBA background. I recently attended a McKinsey and Company recruitment event and had the opportunity to speak with a director and a few associates who have strongly encouraged me to submit an application. In fact, I was told that at the present time, they are particularly anxious to recruit “experienced hires” and they were very keen to point out that prior business experience is definitely not required and I got the impression that they would prefer a blank canvass from that point of view. My background is in medicine, dentistry, higher surgical training and [deleted].  As mentioned, I’ve enjoyed the online tutorials available on YouTube but they seem to assume an existing knowledge of the business and financial world.

My first question therefore is do these tutorials represent the type of case interviews administered to all potential applicants to the large management consultancy firms?

I’m also very interested in the online book and would like to know if this, or indeed any other information source you supply, can help someone like me in my potential application to one of these firms or do you think that perhaps the pathway for the experienced hire has yet to be addressed by FirmsConsulting?

Many thanks for your consideration and keep up the good work!”

Given the above, do experienced candidates without an MBA/business background have a reasonable chance of moving up to McKinsey, Bain or the BCG? If so, what does it take?”

Advice for experienced candidates is covered throughout the blog. To save you time I have pulled it all together in this one post. We offer a career coaching service both for experience hires, MBA’s and current consultants. In this post we will show you how we would assess this candidates chances and whether he has a shot at making it.

Step One: Resume check. It is always better to prepare your résumé and then determine your chances. Prepare a one-page resume using the Harvard format. Things look very different when they are committed to paper.

  • What degree does he have? Is it a graduate degree? Did she do well; as in getting an 80% average or more? Having a masters or doctorate will definitely be a bonus. Being a medical doctor could also count in your favour.
  • Where did he study? Is it a good to great school? Most consulting firms have target schools. These are schools from which they regularly recruit. If you are not from a target school it is also not a problem. Great grades are important.
  • Was the degree full-time or part-time? Part-time degrees will not count for much. We have heard of students being recruited with part-time MBA’s and doctorates; however this is the exception and not the norm.
  • Do any of the consulting firms recruit from this school? This is not a decider, but it does influence the decision.
  • What is his experience? Did he enter as a technical specialist and then start managing people or did he always stay in a technical role? No one answer is better than the other. It really depends on the other answers the picture we get when they are viewed together.
  • How old is he? A 30-35 year old candidate without an MBA, but specialising in a technical field is fine. There is still time to teach you business and help you grow into the firm. The older you are, the harder it will be to change. Assuming you are 40 years old, you should be able to show proven excellence in your field, and the ability and willingness to adapt to management consulting.  Therefore age is critical for technical specialists seeking entry to management consulting.
  • What is his experience? Having no business experience is not at all an issue. Consulting firms are hiring you for your problem solving ability and not your business knowledge. They would always pick talented and smart people who can solve problems over someone with some experience in business.
  • Any blue-chip experience? Just because you were in a technical field does not mean you could not have worked for GE, P&G, and Mercedes and so on in R&D. Blue-chip experience is counted.
  • What kind of leadership activities has he been involved in? The more time you spend out of school, the more this becomes important.
  • Does she have a medical degree or similar advanced qualification? Medical degrees do stand out. They take longer to obtain, they usually require much higher qualifying grades and they show an ability to work with people. All other things being equal, a medical degree would be an asset.

So let’s look at some scenarios.

Scenario 1: Let’s assume the candidate is 32; same background as in the question above and has a medical degree from Harvard Medical School and graduated with a 3.4 GPA. He was successful as a doctor and tried to specialise in surgical training but only spent a year in this field. He has a healthy social life and maintains a full list of hobbies. He would have excellent chances on paper.

Scenario 2: If the scenario was the same but he was 40 years, the chances would diminish unless the candidate demonstrated great success his field, could explain why he never considered business before and why he is willing to make the jump now, and can demonstrate the ability to learn business problem solving (this is shown via the ability to solve cases).

Scenario 3: Same as scenario 1 but he was 45 years old. His chances would be very slim.

Scenario 4: Same as scenario 1, however he is 40 years old but has a doctorate in physics from Stanford and only worked in physics labs. This is still tough. Age is a big factor here. It will come down to the candidate’s determination, school and his success in his career. Yet, it is still slim.

So as you can see; lack of a business background becomes more important the older a candidate becomes. That’s because the older he is, the more important it is for him to demonstrate excellence in his technical field, and his excellence raises questions about his reasons for changing careers and his ability to make this jump.

Step 2: Does  the résumé and reality match?

Let’s assume, we looked at the résumé, and the candidate fell into scenario 1 or 2. We would then arrange for a discussion via video-conference to look for the following:

  • How does the candidate dress? Is this someone we could imagine in front of a client?
  • How does the candidate speak? Are they engaging, articulate and presentable?
  • What are the candidate’s values? Is integrity important?
  • Is the candidate worldly? Does he know what is happening in the world? Does he have a considered view-point and can debate topics?
  • Is he confident? Can he stand his ground and intelligently debate?
  • Does he command attention?
  • What is his etiquette?
  • Is he curious about the world?

Many of these things can be taught. So do not worry if you feel you may be weak in some areas. We use video-recording to show you improvement areas. The wonders of technology means we can advise students in Germany, Canada, Chile, India or even Russia.

This is how we rank candidates:

  • He has all the attributes.
  • He does not have all the attributes but she can be coached and taught.
  • He does not have key attributes which cannot be taught.

If you are ranked in the first 2 groups, then its fine and we allow you to join our coaching program. If we think you lack key attributes which cannot be taught, then we would decline, since you would be unlikely to get in even with the best coaching.

Explicitly answering your questions

Yes – McKinsey, Bain and BCG like to hire experienced candidates with graduate degrees in other fields, even if they have no business background. So if you are a particle physicist, medical doctor or ethno biologist, it will be fine, provided you fulfill the criteria above. BCG, in particular, likes specialists from other fields. That is not to say McKinsey or Bain is less friendly to them, we just know BCG tends to more actively seek candidates with other backgrounds.

Typically if you met these criteria and where young, you would slot in at the Associate level which is the same level as all new MBA graduates. Your career path may be a little different but not in any particularly worrying way. You would just need greater exposure to internal business training and you would easily receive this. For interest, Michael Wolf who led McKinsey’s Global Media Practice only possessed a BA in international politics from Columbia. No master’s degree and no business background. That is one prominent example but there are many others.

Assuming you were an extremely talented scientist from Johnson & Johnson and had risen to the senior ranks of the R&D unit, you would not necessarily come in at an Associate levels. Firms do make exceptions and sometimes bring in candidates on accelerated development paths. Sometimes you join as an associate with the intention to be developed rapidly or in other cases you join as an associate manager. However, this applies to exceptional individuals.

Either way, you would need to solve the core problem solving skills so that you could work in any sector. You are not allowed to specialize until later.

The tutorials DO NOT assume knowledge of business. All those concepts we discuss in the tutorials are typically difficult the first time someone with no business background sees them. However, I can assure you that with training and reading the correct material you will be well prepared you for the case interviews. All candidates, business and non-business, are expected to go through the same cases as the ones in our tutorials. They are easy, and fun, once you learn the techniques. So to answer your first question – Yes, all candidates go through these questions.

To get into the leading firms, you will need the following:

  • Excellent cover letter
  • Resume in, preferably, the Harvard format
  • Coaching on the overall experience
  • Ability to answer all five types of case questions.

The first three mean nothing if you fail the cases. McKinsey will, and regularly, turns down even Harvard MBA’s who fail the case interviews. It is all about demonstrated competency. Some lesser firms will be impressed with a great resume, but the top firms want you to prove your problem solving ability.

The first three are relatively easier to do. We can help with this and offer this service, although you can always do it by yourself. The fourth area is more important. You need to learn this. Either join our Case-Athon or sign up for our one-on-one coaching. Alternatively you can choose to practice alone. Either way, you must do well here to get in.

About the book: I would urge you to get it. Simply because it introduces you to a day-in-the-life of a McKinsey consultant through a real project and was written to teach you about all the concepts they use. It is also written in an entertaining format so you can really understand the issues and problems at a client. It has been a very popular book and we are building more around this. We wrote the book because we know we would have appreciated someone giving us a book like this when we worked at BCG and the like. It has proven to be popular and will give you a real-project overview.

To Summarize:

Summary: Yes, you still have a shot; provided your grades are good and you are starting out in your field. However, age is working against you. The more elapsed time since graduate studies equals fewer excuses for not succeeding at your chosen career or notching up more accomplishments. Ironically, the greater your success here raises questions about why you want to leave and your ability to learn the consulting techniques.

Next Steps: Polish your résumé and you need to apply as early as possible. However, if your grades are not good, you may want to consider getting an MBA to improve your chances. You need to really prepare for the case interviews, speak to consultants in these firms and learn the soft skills to impress the interviewer.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 944 other followers

%d bloggers like this: