Case Interview Preparation & Management Consulting | Strategy | Critical Thinking

If you are thinking through responses to leadership and teamwork questions, the starting point should be knowing the differences between both. At its core, to McKinsey especially, leadership is about influencing a group people to undertake and complete an initiative of importance. Yet, a better definition is that as the leader you tend to be the primary beneficiary of what is happening since you get the credit. As a great team member, you do much of the work but you do not get the great. Ensure your teamwork and leadership stories cover this crucial distinction.

Over the course of the case interview training program, it becomes very important for us to change our coaching style. First, candidates become used to solving cases in just this one style and we need to ensure they can adapt to any style. Second, candidates become adept at reading the "tell" in the coach/mentor so they know when they, the candidate, is making a mistake etc. By changing our coaching style and introducing mentors, we can easily avoid this problem and ensure candidates are becoming stronger at cases versus merely stronger at doing cases with the one coach. Ensure you are also practicing with partners who have different styles.

Most candidates would tackle a McKinsey profitability case by presenting a revenue-cost framework and offer options to lower costs and increase revenue. The reality is that such a framework and explanation shows a deep misunderstanding of business and business strategy. In this podcast, we present the correct way to understand profitability cases which require candidates to understand the growth and cost of growth needs of shareholders. This logic never fails to impress interviewers.

This podcast provides a simple set of priority areas that a novice aspiring consultant should focus upon in the building up to the MBA full-time September interviews. It ties together themes from existing podcasts but presents them in the format of a case interview preparation roadmap.

Brainstorming is very difficult and a crucial skill to have when solving cases, especially with McKinsey where the interviewer will constantly ask you to probe and brainstorm different areas of the case. This podcast examines the initial parts of the brainstorming structure. Since brainstorming happens in such a rapid-fire format and appears unstructured, the speed at which it is done creates the illusion it lacks structures. Yet, it does have structure, but is merely done very quickly in the candidate's mind. This podcast will teach candidates how to generate a structure/definition that can be used to guide the development of options or paths in the brainstorm.

Candidates good through a lot of trouble finding practice partners and reaching out to current and former consultants. We do, however, find that despite all of this effort, they tend to be very weak at the manner in which they capture valuable lessons. There is far too little planning and it is largely a trial and error process. They reach out to 10 people hoping that at least 3 will provide great feedback and possibly 7 will provide some feedback. We find the best candidates have a list of items that they want assessed in the practice session and this rolling list is continuously being updated after every session.

In this podcast we examine the performance of our clients to isolate best practices you can use in your own math calculations in cases. The best practices focus heavily on the types of math calculations where the candidate must structure an analyses approach, estimation cases, and is then either given data or must make assumptions to arrive at a final answer.

This podcast is about the importance of you, the candidate, never ever giving the interviewer the benefit of the doubt, why this is vital, how to do this in a case and the improvement it will immediately deliver. The main value of adopting this mindset is that you tend to explain everything to the interviewer because you assume he is not aware of all the answers. If you enter an interview, assuming the interview is "perfect" you will tend to make assumptions which hurt your chances and damage your image.

This podcast is about the impact of confidence on cases and the importance of avoiding the content trap. We use simple ratios to explain why you need to be confident and how the content-trap sinks many candidates. The content trap occurs when a candidate tends to have poor knowledge of the first principles of cases and rather relies on completing as many cases as possible in the hopes of memorizing all possible frameworks. This is a losing strategy since they are not learning how to solve cases.

Analyzing customers, competitors and the market: 3 areas which must always be considered in cases, even when it is not clear why. In essence, all businesses exist to serve customers. A business cannot exist without customers and to understand demand you must understand customers. The ability to meet demand is impacted by competitors/substitutes and market barriers like legislation, inflation etc. Therefore, these three areas must be analyzed in cases where demand may be an issue.

The importance of starting estimation cases from a known versus unknown variable cannot be underestimated. This may sound like a strange piece of advice, but makes a monumental difference on the ease of calculations and sanity-checking at the end. Moreover, simple probability theory indicates you dramatically increase your chances of getting a correct answer at the end if you begin your equation with a known variable.

Candidates mess up calculations for 4 primary reasons: missing units, complicated equations, weak visual layout and poor technique. Notice that we ignore speed and arithmetic. There is a reason for that and it is discussed in the podcast. The most surprising one of the lot is missing units. We have trained PhDs who graduated first in their schools and many tend to drop units thereby producing meaningless answers. These are all simple mistakes but the impact is substantial.

Despite the words “framework” and “structure” used so often, most candidates cannot explain what it is and why it is used. Unless you know the latter, you tend to misuse the framework and incorrectly use it in a case. This podcast presents the need for case structures from the viewpoint of the interviewer or engagement partner. It indicates that case structures are not there merely to guide you, but to guide the person guiding you. And if you extend this to its logical conclusion, if the framework is their to guide the interviewer, then communicating your structure and thinking becomes very important.

We find many candidates drown in feedback. They want as much good feedback as possible and speak to as many people as possible thereby receiving lots of detailed and sometimes average feedback on their performance. There are two problems here. First, much of this feedback will likely be contradictory and possibly misleading. Second, the candidate will literally drown in this feedback usually consisting of a 2-page list of improvement areas. We expect our candidates to always prioritize the top 3 issues and tackle them, as explained in this podcast. It is vital to follow this 80/20 principle and ignore the majority which will be of little value overall.

Candidates sometimes divulge too much confidential details, or too little in interviews, resumes, cover letters and LinkedIn profiles. These are the rules for disclosure. It is important to remember that disclosing confidential information merely indicates to McKinsey that you cannot be trusted with their own client information. Moreover, disclosing information on your resume and hiding it from your LinkedIn merely means you are aware of the ethical breach you are making. It is important to avoid these problems at all costs. From the beginning, be the person that is worthy of a consulting firm.

Building hypotheses is very difficult. Most candidates in a McKinsey, BCG et al interview would not know when to build the hypothesis, what comprises the hypothesis, how to test if it is MECE etc. This simple technique is one way to build hypotheses and used on real consulting engagements. It was developed to help candidates prioritize their analyzes and ensure the hypotheses are MECE. When practicing this technique note that the development of the decision tree must be done quickly and cleanly.

Far too many candidates focus on being faster. That is another myth. Speed is an outcome of having good technique. So if you are slow, deconstruct your technique, analyze weaknesses and develop a new way to solve arithmetic. That is key. Unless your technique improves aka "your process to solve math," you will never improve. We explain how in this podcast. Moreover, if an interviewer or practice partner indicates you are slow, think carefully if your technique can be improved, versus merely trying to speak faster. Note, there are many different techniques to solve arithmetic problems so do not search for the "best" technique. Find one that works for you..

The myth of demand side estimation cases is the greatest mistake taught in case books worldwide and is probably the worst technique a candidate should be using. Candidates around the world are taught that all estimation cases are market sizing cases and all market sizing cases must be done from the demand side. The problem is that not all estimation cases are market sizing cases and not all market sizing cases should be done from the demand side. Fortunately, it is easy to fix

Solving a case while talking an interviewer through your thinking (written or otherwise) is, for the interviewer, a little like trying to understand a presentation without seeing the slides. Or at the very least seeing untidy slides – that is, assuming your working sheets are messy. Here we talk through the anatomy of a case dialogue pointing out key mistakes candidates make and a very simple technique they can use when communicating in case interviews.

When we ask candidates for more details in their resume, fit responses and cover letter, they always write longer sentences. There is an important difference between “more details” and “greater length". Most candidates are accustomed to spending just a few minutes on a thought and then writing up long and poorly structured sentences. When we ask for more details, we require more facts in the case interview or fit answer and this, crucially, usually means denser and shorter answers.