| Topic Name: |
Boutique or Big 5? |
| Message Name: |
"safe" vs. "risky" |
| Date Posted: |
01/24/2001 |
| In Reply To: |
Althogh I agree that those who go to boutiques from a top tier firm have a great "pedigree" I don't think it always sticks to their advantage. It's like coming from an Ivy league school almost. There are expectations of you to be some sort of wonder child. Honestly, those people in my firm who came from top tier firms were expected to outperform those who were already there. Well, they don't really. Some of them actually have difficulty transitioning bc they are used to doing things in a VERY different manner. It's also the thinking too. At boutiques, at least at mine, you are expected to be fiercly creative. That's really hard for some people coming from McKinsey. (no offense) even though they may be a lot better at creating a model. Also, people at boutiques tend to be less devoted to consulting as a life long career, hence many people leave, I think that accoutns for the previous posters' "I cannot say the same for all the people tht started with me" People usually have many more interests in and outside of work that lead them to other career moves, making for a very dynamic environment. In general, I would really say the boutique learning environment and overall experience is very rich and extremely rewarding. |
| Message: |
I think this notion of top tier or big 5 being more "safe" has to be put in a context.
There is a sense of working for a boutique that it is more risky but I actually think it is a work environment issue. Most boutiques nurture an environment where you should take risks because the rewards are very high. Risks, in the sense of the way you appraoch a problem, how you think, the ideas you come up with, etc. At top tier firms and big 5, the environment is less conducive to taking these risks. The environment is much more conservative and structured.
|
|
