They generally hire smart people who are good at a combination of:

- understanding existing systems

- what the paint points are

- making suggestions on how to improve those systems given the paint points

- that includes a mix of tech changes, process updates and/or new systems etc

Now, when it comes to implementing this, in my experience it usually ends up being the already in place dev teams.

Source: worked at a large investment bank that hired McKinsey and I knew one of the consultants from McK prior to working at the bank.

My take*: McKinsey hiring largely selects for staying calm under pressure and presenting a confident demeanor to clients. Verbal fluency with decision-making frameworks goes a long way. Having strong analytical skills seemed essential; hopefully the bar for "sufficiently analytical" has raised along with general data science skills in industry.

I don't view them as top-tier experts in their own right, whether it be statistics or technology, but they have a knack for corporate maneuvering. I often question their overall value beyond the usual "hire the big guns to legitimize a change" mentality. Maybe a useful tradeoff? I'd rather see herd-like adoption of current trends than widespread corporate ignorance and insularity.**

A huge selling point for M&Co is kind of a self-fulfulling prophecy based on the access they get. This gives them a positive feedback loop to find the juiciest and most profitable areas to focus on.

For those who know more, how do my takes compare?

* I interviewed with them over 15 years ago, know people who have worked there, and I pay attention to their reports from time to time.

** Of course, I'd rather see a third way: cross-pollination between organizations to build strong internal expertise and use model-based decision making for nuanced long-term decisions... but that's just crazy talk.