Case Interview Preparation & Management Consulting | Strategy | Critical Thinking

Your case practice partner is the most important ally you have as you prepare. The problem is that most people completely squander this advantage. They tend to be unclear about their level of preparation and commitment they are willing to make. Many arrive late to practice sessions, prepare poorly and fail to keep track of their partners performance. When a practice partners breaks contact, you are left in the position of having to transfer all that important insight about yourself to a new practice partner and that is just inefficient even if it could be done. This podcast discusses ways to manage the problem.

Candidates sometimes prefer to be cautious and offer a solution earlier rather than waiting to fully flesh out the drivers and key issues in a case. The problem with this approach is that if you offer a solution before identifying the problem, it raises concerns to the interviewer about your thinking processes - how can you offer a solution before identifying the problem? This podcast describes this issue in much more detail.

In brainstorming the interviewer is looking for your approach to define an objective function, understand the direct drivers of the function, prioritize the drivers and explain how to manipulate them. There is only one definition for productivity and that is formally used in all studies. Productivity is the total value of outputs over the total cost to deliver those outputs. Other definitions are derivations which assess narrow areas only. A candidate will struggle to understand operations cases unless they understand the concept of productivity.

Merging the BCG and McKinsey approach, elegantly. This is a simple discussion on how to merge both approaches so you do not need to worry about learning different techniques. One caveat, as explained in latter podcasts is to assume there is just a simple BCG and simple McKinsey style. It is dangerous to make this assumption. About 50% to 60% of McKinsey cases cannot be solved with any framework at all. Most McKinsey cases require an hypotheses upfront, but not all, and they almost all interviewer led. It is crucial to understand the different ways a case can be done and listen carefully to the interviewer to figure out which is best for you.

Candidates always want to show improvement on their resumes in the months leading up to their applications. For those working in industry or rival consulting firms, showing leadership and career development is crucial. This podcast explains that career rotation, a lateral move at the same pay grade, is rarely a good idea unless it takes you to a part of the business where you can show leadership in solving a major problem. Career progression, a promotion to a new pay grade, always looks good on a resume because it demonstrates you are mastering your functional domain. It is better to stay in a role and achieve results than rotating for a better title.

We always teach clients estimation technique first, followed by brainstorming technique and finally full case technique. There is a simple reason for this, which is explained in this podcast. Estimations tend to be, but not always, a brainstorm with very few or just one branch. A brainstorm is therefore an estimation equation with multiple branches. A full case structure is a very large brainstorm with mini-brainstorms at each new branch. We want candidates to see this evolution so they can understand how crucial brainstorming is to the entire case interview approach.

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.