mc2i Consultant Interview Questions
& Process

So, first I had a call with a recruiter, lasted about 15 minutes, just to chat about my background and see if it fit what mc2i was looking for. Then, the next step was an interview with a Consultant. After that, I had a second interview, in person, with either a Partner or an Unit Director. The very last chat was with someone from the Management team.

The interview process was quite long, with an initial HR call followed by three interviews with managers or partners. It felt like a lengthy procedure for feedback that wasn't very constructive or understanding. I had an interview with a manager that seemed to go really well, with lots of questions asked to gauge my interest in the company's activities. But then, the feedback was that I had a 'gap' in my CV regarding the 'technical' aspect of the role, which is odd for a consultant position, not an engineering one. Also, it seems their standard feedback and preference is about 'lack of curiosity,' which I've seen in other reviews and appears to be an excuse to reject candidates.

So, after three interviews that seemed to go well, I got a rejection based on a really weird and unbelievable reason. It turns out they really wanted candidates to show a strong commitment to the company, with lots of praise for them. They also stressed the need for super concise experience presentations. I totally followed their lead in the third interview, using a structured approach (like STAR), getting straight to the point: company, job, context, impact. I kept it to five or six sentences per experience, no unnecessary rambling. And yet, the rejection reason was "lack of synthesis skills." This is apparently a common thing people are told. It's even weirder because the conversation was smooth, and the interviewer's questions showed he totally got my answers, with enough detail to suggest the opposite of what they're accusing me of. I followed the instructions to the letter in the third interview. Structured presentation (STAR), concise points, focused on the essentials: company, mission, context, impact. Five to six sentences per experience, no digressions, no pointless chatter. And yet, the rejection reason was "lack of synthesis skills." Strange, right? Especially since the chat was smooth, with an interviewer who was clearly paying attention, and whose questions showed a perfect understanding of what I was saying. It's a funny paradox to be criticized for a lack of clarity when there was crystal-clear understanding. This kind of justification seems to be popping up a lot, making it seem like some rejections are just pre-written responses, used no matter what actually happens in the interviews. Even when a candidate tries to fit the company's mold and talk their talk, it feels like the script is already written. It makes you wonder: what's the real point of the interview if it's just to confirm a rejection that was decided behind the scenes? Funny thing – or maybe not – a friend told me I'd get exactly this kind of feedback. Guess he knows how things work. Another oddity: this unspoken expectation that a good interview means talking more about the company than yourself. Praising your interviewer's background, being humble, not elaborating too much on your own experiences... A kind of subtle but strategic self-effacement. I went along with it. Apparently, that still wasn't the right move. But deep down, one question remains: what exactly are you looking for in candidates, dear mc2i? And more importantly, how do you actually evaluate a profile? Because, let's remember, mc2i is a consulting firm: 90% of the time, consultants work on-site with the client. So, it's the client who approves the profile, assesses the deliverables, and decides on the next steps. The central role you seem to give yourselves in this equation could, in the long run, distract from what's most important: the quality of the work and client satisfaction. Another friend – yes, another one – was told he didn't have the "mc2i spirit." Fine. But maybe it's worth remembering that we don't work *at* mc2i day-to-day, but *through* mc2i, at clients' locations. An important distinction. So, overall, it would be great if the process became more consistent, transparent, and respectful of candidates' time and genuine commitment. Because even when you play the game, sometimes very seriously... you end up wondering if there's actually a game to be played.