I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately because I’m seeing two different camps of people. One group seems to have this whole thing figured out—they know which firm they want, which office, what practice area. They’re very targeted in their networking. The other group (and honestly this feels more like me) is still figuring it out as they go. They’re talking to people, learning about what different teams actually do versus the marketing version, and then deciding if it’s the right fit. I started networking without a super clear plan, thinking clarity would come naturally. And it kind of has, but I’m wondering if I’ve been inefficient. Is there an advantage to having a target locked in before you start reaching out to people? Or is there something actually valuable about the exploration phase? Because I’m genuinely uncertain whether I’m being smart or just slow.
both can work but theyre very different strategies. targeted approach gets u interviews faster bc ur signals are clearer. exploratory approach might find u something better but costs time. depends if ur desperate for speed or if u actually have runway to figure it out. most ppl dont have that luxury so they go targeted.
ooh this is such a good question!! i think learning from ppl is rly important tho even if it slows u down? like u might discover something u wouldnt have otherwise?
but also maybe u can do both? explore a little then get focused? idk im still figuring it out too lol
anyone else on the exploration side and feeling okay about it?
The productive path lies between these extremes. I’d recommend clarity on what you’re not willing to do before you optimize toward what you want. For instance, knowing “I’m not interested in operations consulting” or “I need to be in a major metro” gives your networking real direction without requiring you to identify the perfect firm. Then, as you talk to people in those parameters, patterns emerge. You discover that strategic work feels different from execution work, or that certain firms have distinct cultures. This explorative phase within boundaries is valuable precisely because you gain experience-based conviction rather than resume-based theory. By month two or three, you should have enough intel to become targeted. The error is either boundless exploration (which looks like indecision) or premature specificity (which misses better options).
You’re learning what matters to you—that’s actually really smart! Clarity will come, and when it does, you’ll be genuinely informed. Trust the process!
I went in pretty unfocused and honestly it worked out well. I talked to maybe eight consultants over three months, and through those conversations I realized I really wanted strategy work, not implementation. If I’d locked that in beforehand, I might’ve gone the other direction. The people I talked to didn’t seem annoyed at my uncertainty—they kind of expected it from someone still evaluating. By month four I knew exactly what I wanted and the networking suddenly felt very targeted.
Industry data suggests candidates with clear parameters outpace exploratory candidates by roughly 40% in interview conversion rates. However, those same exploratory candidates show higher long-term retention and satisfaction post-hire. The trade-off is speed versus fit. Setting initial exclusion criteria—not inclusion criteria—appears to be the optimal strategy. This provides direction without prematurity.
Timing-wise, most successful candidates move from exploratory to decisive phases within 6-10 weeks. Remaining exploratory beyond that threshold typically indicates decision paralysis rather than genuine inquiry, and extends your overall timeline without proportional benefit.