Why I left McKinsey to join a startup?
Reflections 6 months after joining Charles.
May 27th, 2021
07.00pm CET
I just landed in Berlin, it is surprisingly cold for a spring day and is raining a lot. I get into the taxi, open my email, go to drafts and read again the message I have been preparing for the last 2 hours.
I don’t like it. It is not easy to say goodbye… But who cares anyway? Probably nobody will read it.
Send, and… official! I just left the firm.
Goodbye McKinsey, hallo Berlin!
——
Fast forward 7 months and I am writing these words from yet another plane back to Spain. This time I am traveling only to visit family over Christmas, not to stay. I do not have an email to send when I arrive, I am not leaving Charles and it will be much warmer when I land than it was at takeoff.
But one question remains stuck in my brain since May 27th, just with a different verbal tense… Was it a mistake to leave McKinsey?
Unequivocally, no.
It was the best decision of 2021. Period.
Why did I quit McKinsey for a startup (Charles)?
I left McKinsey betting on two simple hypothesis:
“I will learn more, faster and I will get closer to my future goals (becoming an entrepreneur) at Charles over the next 3-5 years than I could at McKinsey over the next 5-8”
“Even if I am wrong and it is a mistake, it is a reversible one from which I will learn valuable things (and will at least teach me whether the startup world really interests me)”
These hypotheses had pretty much no solid basis at the time other than my gut feeling. However, over the last months, it has become increasingly more obvious. And now I am certain that both are true for me and would also be for most.
Learn more and faster at Charles vs McKinsey
I know, bold statement.
McKinsey is renowned for being one of the “best schools for future CEOs in the world” and among its alumni there are many successful entrepreneurs too. The likes of Sundar Pichai (Google, CEO) and Sterling Anderson (Aurora Innovation, Co-founder) are fellow McKinsey alumni, among many others.
Impressive. But it does make sense, you are not as prestigious as McKinsey just based on good PR. You gotta’ be doing something right…
So why the heck did (and do) I think that I can learn more at Charles?
Well, this is based on 2 ideas:
Charles is better suited to teach me the right skills I will need in the future to become an entrepreneur, and
The rigid structure of McKinsey is a doubled edge sword; representing both the gift that will make sure you learn immensely but also the curse that limits how fast you can really learn
1. Why would ever be Charles better suited to teach me anything than McKinsey?
Well, how to put it?
I want to become an entrepreneur and build a successful startup.
McKinsey is a huge multinational corporation that mostly treats and works with other corporates.
Charles is a well-funded, fast-growing startup headed for success.
Do I really have to explain…?
Jokes aside and disregarding the obvious, I’d split the reasons why I am learning more and more relevant skills at Charles than I would at McKinsey into 3 buckets, from more general to more specific:
The structure of the company:
Charles represents exactly what I want to build in the future.
That alone, if you really dive into the company and try to absorb from everything that is going on around will teach you tones. Also, the fact that it is a small but growing team with foundations and structures still to be defined and established means that there are many chances to learn way past any expectations you could have. You are working day in and day out helping define the ways we build the product, the way we sell, the way we organize ourself; essentially, the way we work!
From how to set up all this and how to navigate the dynamics that arise across teams and people when such changes are happening, to having the opportunity to get involved in topics you would never have the chance to get involved with otherwise because you obviously still lack the skills or knowledge. It really is a unique opportunity that gives you access to the best form of learning, doing.
The quality of the people:
Charles is a startup, but not just another one.
At Charles the quality of the people is the obvious key differentiator with many other Startups, and even McKinsey. At a big company or a consulting firm you can have a very high average level for your people, but no matter how thorough you are recruiting there will always be a big range in terms of skills, dedication and potential across employees.
At a Startup this will also happen, especially as it grows. But there is only one way to make a 10 people team thrive (like Charles back in June when I joined), having the best only. From ex-McKinsey consultants, to mastermind programmers, successful entrepreneurs or creative minds; our team was diverse but each of them was a top 1% on its own right and extremely devoted to the company – something you will not find often.
And being surrounded by the very best and having the chance to work very closely with them with high intensity and speed is an unbelievable environment in which to learn and grow.
My role at Charles:
I joined Charles as Founder’s Associate, which is a cool name for “human Swiss knife”.
As a Founder’s Associate you do not have a established job description that limits the scope of what you will do. And it existed it would be like “you are the guy who will do anything and everything that is needed for the founder and the company and for which there is no other person available, while supporting other teams and driving side projects that might appear at moment notice”.
In other words, as a Founder’s Associate you do parts of the job the founder would do if he had infinite time. As a wannabe future founder I cannot think of many jobs that fit me best.
I am literally getting paid to work closely with a founder I admire and from which I am learning like crazy, in topics I find extremely interesting and exciting and that are preparing me to think and act as a founder the day I finally become one.
(Also, Andreas – the founder I am working with – is a former Associate Partner at McKinsey and you can tell. So I am getting the best of working with an entrepreneur and the best of working with a McKinsey Partner. Sweet deal.)
2. Why can you learn faster at Charles vs McKinsey?
This is a combination of the 3 topics described above + the inherent speed and growth of a Startup.
Starting with the obvious, working in a company that is growing fast where still everything has to be built, with very smart and skilled people as the guy who can jump on anything and everything is quite a good place from which to start to grow.
On the other hand, if you manage to keep up with the speed at which a Startup can grow, it will inevitably propel your personal growth at least at the same speed.
The reality is that you won’t go from having no experience to being appointed COO out of the blue. But at the same time, the unique environment in which you are will give you many opportunities to perform at levels way above your supposed own rank. If you take those opportunities, learn, adapt and prove you are capable of taking ownership, chances are you can skip multiple steps at a time.
There is simply no time to question whether you have the supposed experience to do something. If you prove you can handle it, you will have to handle it.
Compare that to McKinsey and their 2-3 year up or out philosophy.
Don’t get me wrong, it is a great place to learn and grow fast. Every 2-3 years you know you are expected to have mastered certain skills and then they promote you to a different level and are forced to learn different ones. It is a phenomenal method to train extremely highly competent polyvalent leaders. But it will take you 2 to 3 years to evolve your skillset, like it or not.
At Charles (or any other more unstructured startup), there is no guarantee to learn all that you would at a place like McKinsey. But what is guaranteed is that if you outgrow your current role or responsibilities, nobody will force you 2 or 3 years into the same role until you can move on.
If you are willing to take the risk, you might be able to go learn all that you would at McKinsey, and much more, in half the time.
It is a calculated risk you have to embrace.
But startups are just that at its core,
calculated risks.
Even when I am wrong, I am winning
Here is a secret that somehow seems to remain hidden to the vast majority of the population (and specially my parents)…
Quitting McKinsey to join a well-funded Startup is the kind of story you can sell both to a place exactly like McKinsey or exactly like a well-funded Startup.
Yes, even if it is not a success story.
I know it seems absurd, but good storytelling can go a long way. Specially in prestigious organizations that praise drive and the uniqueness of the individuum above all (given that skills and intellect are covered)
This is a topic that a while ago I realized most people, especially students trying to get into such places, completely miss. They read articles on how only 1% of all applicants make it, how the processes can be long and impossible to crack; and… they freak out.
I saw it while finishing my studies. Extremely smart people practicing cases and tests for hours on end to a point where it looked like they were memorizing what to say instead of learning how to think. Honestly, it was ridiculous.
The truth is, almost everyone can solve a case (sorry guys, it is what it is). And most certainly everyone can improve its knowledge base on any subject matter to an extent that is far beyond what an interview could ever assess.
The make it or break it is usually your storytelling. That simple.
Good candidate, looks smart and has an engaging, unique story that makes sense? Expect an offer by end of the week.
Brilliant but can barely compose itself, with only stories of its own study room and no good explanation of how or why they made it to the interview in the first place? Better luck next time.
If you are not convinced, maybe this will. Elon Musk would be quite an obvious hire, right? Surprise, surprise, he started his first company literally only because he couldn’t get a real job at an internet company.
Yes, the guy that is shaping the future of humanity and the way two completely different industries work while drilling superfast tunnels and connecting brains to computers to regenerate damage couldn’t get a job. I mean, I got one and I cannot build a paper plane…
As I said, being smart is not all that counts.
So, assume I was wrong.
Assume I realize I should I have stayed at McKinsey (which I should have not). Or that Charles was the wrong startup (which is not).
What is the worst case scenario? Losing some months of my life in a different country to get back to one of these jobs with more experiences and connections than before and a cool story to tell?
Not too bad…
Now assume I was right.
Assume Charles is the perfect place to be (which it is). Assume I am learning more than I could have imagined and very fast (which I am). Assume also that it becomes a huge success and 4-5 years down the line makes me rich (which I hope). And if that was not all, assume by then it has prepped me to build my own company (which I will).
Not too bad either…
Risk-reward ratio approved.
It just made sense.
What do you think, would you have done the same? Maybe you think I am stupid and made a big mistake, it could be.
Whatever it is, leave a comment and let me know!
Thanks for reading and share it with your friends if you liked it,
G