| Topic Name: |
What is the general consensus on Monitor |
| Message Name: |
Alternative thought |
| Date Posted: |
10/04/2003 |
| In Reply To: |
Basically a lot of what you says holds some truth. When the Fuller brothers and the rest left Bain in 83, they took everything they liked out of that business model and changed what they saw fit. The main distinction there is that Bain focuses solely on results, whereas Monitor consultants are all about ideas. What this translates to is radical ideas that change companies sometimes at the cost of not getting the precise solution a client wants. Whether this is a good or bad model is kinda left up to debate, but I think it makes their revenue stream very sensitive to the economy since most companies in times of recession aren't looking for a radical answer; they just want to keep their heads above water. Also, Monitor's culture is very collegial (not like every MC house's claim), so that is one more way they differentiate themselves. Hope that helps or gives you a little more insight... |
| Message: |
I do agree with aegis' point about Monitor being very idea focused, however I think the whole 'we have this collegial culture that others do not' is nothing but propaganda. I have worked at or have close friends at McK, Bain, BCG and Monitor and I have never heard any convincing evidence that Monitor's culture is really differentiated.
When it comes to compensation, Monitor is very differentiated. I don't know if there compensation used to be competitive, but in the past few years Monitor's pay was significantly lagged the other firms, i.e third year undergrads at M/B/B will make ~$90-100K while Monitor third years bring in ~$60-65K (mostly because of no bonuses)
|
|
