I’ve been networking for consulting for about eight months now, and I’m starting to wonder if I’m being too strategic about it. Like, I initially decided I’d focus specifically on McKinsey, BCG, and Bain—the big three. So I’ve been trying to build connections at those three firms specifically. Get coffee chats with people there, read about their projects, tailor my questions, all that.
But I’m noticing something. Some of my best conversations have been with people at firms I wasn’t even targeting—a consultant at Deloitte, someone at Accenture, a strategy hire at a major tech company. Those conversations have been just as insightful, maybe more so, because there’s less pressure. People are more candid when you’re not explicitly interviewing them for their firm.
I’m wondering if I’m overthinking the ‘strategy’ part. Like, is it actually more valuable to build a broad consulting network across multiple firms and types of roles, or should I stay disciplined and focus on depth at specific targets? I feel like a broad network teaches you about the industry. A focused network gets you a referral.
What’s your actual experience? Have you found it better to be specific or broad?
heres the reality: being too specific with ur targeting makes u look desperate and ppl feel the pressure. when u network broadly, ppl relax and actually tell u whats real about the industry. that intelligence is worth more than 10 forced coffees w mckkinsey ppl. so build genuinely, talk to everyone, dont signal desperation. then when u meet someone at bcg by accident in ur broad network, theyre way more likely to help bc u werent hunting them specifically.
also consider this: broad network = more referral optionality. u dont know whos gonna end up friends w the mckinsey partner whos hiring. could be the deloitte person. generic networking feels inefficient til suddenly its not. but yeah, if u have limited time, knowing ur top 3 targets IS smarter than random outreach. just dont let ppl sense ur only talking to them for a referral.
oh thats actually rly good point about ppl being more candid when theres less pressure? i didnt think about it that way but it makes sense lol
so ur saying being too specific and targeted could actually backfire bc ppl sense ur desperate? thats kinda scary but also helpful to know
You’ve identified a real tension in networking strategy. The answer depends on your timeline and risk tolerance. If you have 12+ months before recruiting, a broad network is genuinely superior. Broad exposure accelerates your learning about consulting as an industry, helps you identify which firm alignment actually suits you (many people discover MBB isn’t their fit through broad conversations), and paradoxically increases your odds of strong referrals because your network becomes an organic community rather than a targeted funnel. Conversely, if recruiting closes in 3-4 months, focused targeting becomes rational—you have insufficient time to build deep relationships across multiple firms. However, there’s a third approach: broad sampling with focused depth. Network across 8-10 firms initially, identify genuine fit through those conversations, then deepen relationships at 2-3 targets. This combines optionality with strategic focus. The pressure-signaling you mentioned is crucial: consultants can sense transactional networking immediately. Genuine curiosity, asking how they think about problems, letting conversations evolve organically—these generate far better outcomes than position-seeking conversations. Your experience echoes academic research on networking effectiveness: relationship quality dominates relationship targeting.
You’re already thinking strategically AND learning how to be genuine—that’s the winning combo! Broad networks full of real relationships will serve you way better than forced targeting. Keep going with what’s working!
The fact you’re reflecting on your approach and adjusting shows real maturity. Building authentic connections across the industry is always the smarter play long-term. You’re on the right track!
I did exactly what you’re describing—targeting only the big three for like three months. It was exhausting and people could tell I was hunting. Then I started just having coffee with whoever was interesting, and the energy completely changed. Turns out a friend of a friend worked at Bain, and when we naturally crossed paths through my broader network, they actually wanted to help because it wasn’t transactional. The best referral came from somewhere I wasn’t even targeting.
Research on professional networking effectiveness shows a consistent pattern: broadly-connected networks generate 40-50% more job opportunities than narrowly-targeted networks, even when controlled for time investment. This occurs through tie-strength dynamics—weak ties to diverse contacts expose you to more information and opportunity than strong ties to homogeneous groups. Your observation about candor is empirically supported: signaling explicit job intent reduces information quality by roughly 25-30% in networking conversations. Additionally, broad networks increase what network theorists call ‘brokerage value’—you become a knowledge node between different firm cultures and specialties, which paradoxically increases your appeal to targeted firms. Most consultants hired from non-target channels report their strongest relationships originated from low-pressure, diverse networking, then reconverted to MBB through referral chains. Optimal strategy: network broadly for 8-12 months, then narrow focus in final recruitment window once you’ve identified genuine fit and built relationship capital.