Buddy Call Process

Process

Here we'll break down why buddies are assigned, and what the consultancies gain by creating this construct of buddy calls. A good starting point is their interviewing objective of having the best shot of recruiting 10-20 good enough candidates. From this point of view, buddy calls help them achieve 3 things:

1. Assessing the candidate's full capability -

A candidate whose performance is subpar on interview day, might have underperformed for one of two reasons:
  1. Lack of inherent capability or practise
  2. Lack of guidance and quality feedback during preparation

In the first case, the firm would not want to recruit such a candidate, as they are either not as sharp, or not as motivated as their target recruit. But in the second case, it's more a function of them not knowing the right set of PGP2s or batchmates who could give them quality feedback. That's an unfortunate reason to miss out on recruiting someone who is sharp and can learn well. The role of the buddy is to provide some baseline level of guidance, do practise cases and ensure that the candidate's preparation is on track. This is why firms will keep recommending that you interact with your buddy as much as possible, and ask all of your questions, because their process is "non-evaluative".

2. Nudging candidates in the direction of the firm -

All of the candidates that the firm is interviewing would likely have other very comparable options available to them. There is limited objective / tangible differentiation between these consultancies, and there are almost no people who have worked across different firms who can paint a fair picture of the differences. A candidate's preferences are therefore largely shaped by intangibles like brand value, the general impression created on campus and hearsay from the PGP2 and alumni that they know. In such a delicate balance the buddy is a crucial and frequent touchpoint that can dramatically influence a candidate's view of a company. Some buddies will outright try and sell the consultancy to the candidate, while most of them will truly act as a supportive alumni, who indirectly improve one's opinion of the firm.

3. Developing a sense of which candidates to focus on -

The first 2 points are purposes which the consultancies are a lot more transparent about, because they're win-win points. Developing a priority order amongst the candidates is far more complex, because each consultancy does this to a different degree. More to the point, each and every company will stress that there buddy process is "100% non-evaluative". Paradoxically, the consultancies do use a non-evaluative buddy process to refine their priority order of candidates:
  1. Each firm prepares a priority ordered list of candidates to begin with (shortlist starts with a priority order).
  2. Through a few key events such as dinners and buddy interactions and buddy cases they try to collect information to refine their initial thought process and further refine the ordering.
  3. Finally they also check on the candidate's interest level to make the last shift in order.

The above process has become "non-evaluative" in a few ways:
  1. Firstly, some firms have realised that the second and third step have little to no effective significance on their order of selection, but do give the candidates a lot more to stress about. To make everyone's lives simpler, and also maintain a cleaner image, they have genuinely shaved away all evaluation from the time of shortlisting to interviews.
  2. Secondly, some companies find that evaluation by buddies is a little unreliable and unfair in circumstances. They therefore index only on how personable someone is in a dinner. This also has limited impact on the initial shortlist order. Thus, your buddy would serve mainly to gauge your interest level in the company, which is far more open (they will ask you when offering a hotlist) than evaluative a process.
  3. Thirdly, some consultancies will not directly ask their buddies to evaluate candidates. But the recruiting team will catch up with buddies and gather general information on how the candidate is progressing. These consultancies develop their priority order mainly through their original resume ranking and then as a function of other companies' interest in candidates. However, even these non-evaluative inputs from buddies are used as a sanity check to ensure that their order makes sense.
  4. Finally, there are the next tier of consultancies. A lot of these consultancies are open about the fact that they evaluate the candidate basis their performance in buddy cases. However, these consultancies don't necessarily get to interview many candidates who are on top of their priority list. And those candidates in the second half of their list will often remain in the same order that came out of the shortlisting process. Thus, while they are evaluative, effectively, they may as well not be.

While there is a great degree of debate regarding this point, a safe takeaway, is that while the consultancy may or may not aim to evaluate the candidate, you can for all practical purposes assume that the process is non-evaluative. This assumption will prove to be actually true in a lot of cases, and effectively true in all others.

Takeaway

- Do not stress about the buddy process, and what you can or cannot say to the buddies. Treat them like alumni, who are a lot like you and are invested in helping you out.
- Ask frank and genuine questions that will help you understand the firm better. Don't ask DCP questions just to show interest, both you and they are busy.
- Share your progress with them, do cases with them and ask for feedback. They are on average better equipped to help you improve your preparation than anyone on campus.
- Form an actual bond. These are people that you might end up working alongside soon.