Case Interview Preparation & Management Consulting | Strategy | Critical Thinking

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.

It is impossible to read the personality of an interview and we discuss the typical errors candidates make in trying to read too much into the behavior of interviewers: quiet, asking questions, rude, etc. One thing we always caution candidates is to be wary of assuming the friendly person likes them or that the unfriendly person does not like them. Friendliness does not equate to "like" and people display their emotions in very different ways. So, if the interviewer is very friendly, it could go either way.

It is impossible to read the personality of an interview and we discuss the typical errors candidates make in trying to read too much into the behavior of interviewers: quiet, asking questions, rude, etc. One thing we always caution candidates is to be wary of assuming the friendly person likes them or that the unfriendly person does not like them. Friendliness does not equate to "like" and people display their emotions in very different ways. So, if the interviewer is very friendly, it could go either way.

When interviewing with a partner or associate from a different culture, it is very easy to say something which can offend a person. Our very own clients have said seemly innocent things only to have it blow up in their face much later, and sometimes in the interview. We have a strict rule of never discussing religion, politics, culture and ethnicity with clients. This avoids topics which can offend people if the wrong things are said. The issue is not about who right, since this is an issue of personal faith and rationality does not always work. It is best to avoid these topics.

Interviewers can only respond to what you say, and poor communication, like in this example, not only wastes time, but is a poor reflection on your candidacy. This is a crucial point to remember. No matter how brilliant you may be, if you cannot communicate that brilliance, and do so in a manner laymen would understand, your intellect counts for little in a case interview since it is all about demonstrated competency. You must demonstrate your competency. Period.

The right way to read a graph in a case interview and a set of graphics, is not to look for each insight, but to extract the overall message. Most candidates take enormous pride in reading every insight they can find and proudly highlighting them in no particular order - and the waiting for instructions. While there is nothing wrong with this, it is not the way consultants read cases and requires someone, usually the interviewer, to guide the prioritization of the information and generation of the next steps in the case. You can impress the interviewer by weaving together the one most important message, relevant to the case, from all the data.

Brainstorming is the core of a McKinsey case interview. It is tough to pass a case without brainstorming skills. The problem is that it is hard to find a definition and technique to brainstorm effectively and efficiently. This podcast introduces a 3 step, or 5 depending on the way you list the steps, approach to ease the brainstorming approach. This is a very powerful technique which all consultants use daily and is adapted from a BCG technique.