4 ms·

I've never worked in consulting, but, so far as I know, the big, MBB consulting firms tend to incorporate most of the advised measures in tokenadult's post when

I've never worked in consulting, but, so far as I know, the big, MBB consulting firms tend to incorporate most of the advised measures in tokenadult's post when evaluating potential employees. These measures include GMAT cut-offs, GPA cut-offs, very lengthy interviews that incorporate questions like the one discussed here, and they ultimately prefer to hire people who have previously interned with them, and what better work-sample test is there than an internship? That sounds like a pretty solid vetting process to me, yet there's a lot of pessimism surrounding big-name consulting. I'd like to hear from anyone who's worked there or gone through this process to hear why they ultimately get such a bad rep.

sounds 14y ago
I'm going to try to answer your question but I imagine it's very Anna Karenina-esque: "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Often the problem is the size of the firm, allowing institutional problems to sabotage otherwise good practices. Instead of recognizing and promoting the things that will improve the firm long-term, they implement good hiring practices only to prevent lawsuits, bad press, etc. Revitalizing a large company before it dies is a very difficult problem.
spamizbad 14y ago
Consulting companies built their reputations on their work in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. They encouraged companies to do things we now consider Business 101 (it was cutting-edge stuff back then though). Several major companies in the 1960s had no insight into their competitors or even a full picture of the market they were in. These were the sort of organizations that collected very little data beyond sales and balance sheet figures - it was like they lived in a "bubble". The pioneering consulting firms popped those bubbles and actually taught businesses how to do basic market analysis, and turn that analysis into business strategy. If you're at all curious, I'd recommend reading The Lords of Strategy by Walter Keichel, which a (albeit opinionated) history of the consulting practice.

sounds 14y ago

I'm going to try to answer your question but I imagine it's very Anna Karenina-esque: "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Often the problem is the size of the firm, allowing institutional problems to sabotage otherwise good practices. Instead of recognizing and promoting the things that will improve the firm long-term, they implement good hiring practices only to prevent lawsuits, bad press, etc. Revitalizing a large company before it dies is a very difficult problem.

spamizbad 14y ago

Consulting companies built their reputations on their work in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. They encouraged companies to do things we now consider Business 101 (it was cutting-edge stuff back then though). Several major companies in the 1960s had no insight into their competitors or even a full picture of the market they were in. These were the sort of organizations that collected very little data beyond sales and balance sheet figures - it was like they lived in a "bubble". The pioneering consulting firms popped those bubbles and actually taught businesses how to do basic market analysis, and turn that analysis into business strategy. If you're at all curious, I'd recommend reading The Lords of Strategy by Walter Keichel, which a (albeit opinionated) history of the consulting practice.