Hey everyone.
So recently i was talking to my recruiter about interviewing for a generalist path vs an expert path in the junior specialist vs junior associate position. She told me she's quite new but she believes everything is pretty similar.
I was wondering if anyone has any idea about the differences in schedule, travelling, salary and anything else you might think of.
This would be in Northern Europe in the sustainability space if it's the expert path.
Thanks in advance for your time!
Hi there,
Let me take your questions one by one.
1. Recruitment process
You can expect indeed the same, as your friend said. You will have a case part and a personal fit part. The one thing I suggest you clarify with HR is whether the cases for the specialist role are from within that industry. This happens sometimes for some offices and practices and it's better to know it in advance to adjust your preparation accordingly.
2. Schedule
This will depend mostly on the project that you are being staffed on. Specialists usually have a clearer role within a project and they also have obligations for knowledge development outside of the client work. As a consequence, from my experience in McKinsey, I've noticed that their schedule is a bit more relaxed and less pressured by the team.
3. Travelling
You might be travelling slightly less as a specialist. This is mostly because you might also be staffed on internal efforts that allow you to work remotely and don't require any client facing presence.
4. Salary
Assuming we're talking between equivalent roles between specialist and generalist, the pay will either be the same or even higher for specialist roles (mostly because of the scarcity of talent).
Here's more on what to expect on your start: https://www.preplounge.com/en/articles/entry-level-consultant-what-is-it-like
Best of luck with the application process!
Cristian
Hey there,
1. The recruiting process is exactly the same
To prep, have a look at the 2 articles I wrote:
2. The job is also the same but you will spend 80% of your work on sustainability engagements or sustainability workstreams on other engagements. The way the work is conducted, team setting, salary, everything really is the same regardless of the industry or practice function. On top of office events, you are also invited to practice events (more fun than for a generalist).
It is definitely a good practice to be in as almost every McKinsey engagement these days contains some elements of ESG. Good time to position yourself as an expert and grow quickly!
Cheers,
Florian
Hi there,
I was in an expert role for part of my tenure at McKinsey. On the inside, the biggest differences are the types of projects you'll tend to work on, the capabilities you need to build in order to grow, and the community you will, by default, be a part of.
1) Projects: Pretty straightforward: An expert will work more in their area of expertise vs. a generalist. (But it's not 100% - staffing is operating by guidelines, not rules).
2) Capabilities: Generalist (or integrative) consultants are supposed to be problem solving and analytical specialists vs. experts who are supposed to be fully immersed in their area of expertise. (But it's not either or - both have to have expertise and be good problem-solvers. Just a little more focus on their respective areas)
3) Community: Generalists are, by default, part of their office or, perhaps their practice mostly. Experts sometimes less so and more in their community of practitioners.
If there was a question behind the question: Experts tend to be successful if they are really passionate about the subject at hand. If they just use it as a stepping stone to either get in the firm, or stay in the firm, they tend not to last too long.
Happy to help more - just PM me.
Best,
Allen
Hi there,
I am an expert hire at BCG myself. If you are applying for a consulting track (even as an expert) you may eventually get 1st case from your expertise, the rest will be any strategic case as applying for a generalist role. Your expertise is checked based on your CV but also during the FIT part.
if you are joining below Project leader level, there is not difference vs. generalist in terms of pay or schedule, but you will work rather on cases of your expertise - this may include more long distance travelling if in your region are not cases of your expertise.
If you want to find out more, please feel free to reach out directly and I also invite you to check this article that can answer some of your questions: https://www.preplounge.com/en/articles/how-to-get-into-consulting-as-an-experienced-hire
Good luck!
Lucie
Was this answer helpful?
Hi there,
Agreed that things are mostly the same, but remember that your project exposure is going to be totally different! You need to think long and hard about whether you want to focus on sustainability and commit to that now or if you want a range of projects. This is ultimately a personal choice/preference!
Another point of consideration (not an immediate one, but still useful to keep in mind) is that there are mid-long term differences between expert and generalist tracks. This namely has to do with billability and how KPIs of the expert track starts to differ especially at the PL/Principal level onwards. Happy to share more (from a BCG pov) through DMs
First, joining as an expert in a junior position is a big risk and I don't see the reason why someone should skip the best part of consulting, i.e., seeing many different things.
Second, career progression is slot.
Third, as a partner, you earn less.
Forth, exit options are limited if compared to generalists.
Fifth, when you are a senior you manage content more than projects.
Think deeply about it.
If this is on sustainability, you should expect to see a higher diversity of clients and industries.
Travel should be on the “mid-range”, meaning that you'll avoid both the extremes of long projects abroad and long local projects (or focus on local industry that does not require travel). On average is the same ammount of travel, but a higher certainty of being closer to the average.
Regarding schedule… my expectation is that by becoming a specialist you'll be more productive on the topics you have. Meaning that you are less likely to experience any “extreme” working schedule after you know what you're doing.
Salary and progression should be similar.
The major downside is that you are… becoming a specialist early on, which removes flexibility on your career. That's not a bad thing: if you want to specialize in the topic that's great, but if you don't… it's actually quite bad.
Regarding the topic itself, it should have a “good run” meaning that it will likely last for the next 5-10 years, but after that it will fade out (not because it is not relevant, but because is not really a new / unknown field). At that point you risk having to re-pivot your career.
Hey there
Best
Hey,
this dichotomy — generalist vs expert — isn’t very correct. Instead compare
either general vs solution tracks (that’s why your recruiter told you there was no significant difference, ie your role is client facing)
or expert vs consultant (which seems to be irrelevant in your case).
Best.
Expert case by
