Case Interview Preparation & Management Consulting | Strategy | Critical Thinking

After 11 years of corporate strategy consulting with the firm, 3 of them as principal, I have tended to take for granted that everyone knows the difference between corporate strategy and other types of strategy engagements like developing a market entry strategy or a pricing strategy. Yet, that is not true.

An hour ago I ran a screening call for case coaching with a candidate I will call Hector from Deloitte, let’s assume the Santiago office. The student was at a very élite school, I will call Wharton. This tiny Deloitte office had for the first time offered to pay for an employee’s MBA studies – a huge investment for them. McKinsey was now aggressively trying to recruit the candidate and he was on the brink of pursuing this. I was extremely proud of the way Hector reacted when, upon learning of the source of his funding and obligations, I immediately refused to conduct the screening call because it was not in his best interest. In these moments, we get to see tomorrow’s leaders forged.

Far too many candidates demonstrate poor knowledge of consulting by insisting that they want to work for McKinsey strategy and not operations or BTO. This is a flawed strategy which will only hurt their chances in the short, medium and long-term. This podcast explains why and how to compensate for this misunderstanding.

Many candidates are declined with the suggestion to gain more work experience. Unfortunately, candidates take this feedback at face value. This podcast explains what this feedback means and suggests a vital shortcut to fix this problem. Hint, it does not require work experience at all.

This is an important podcast. Many Indian MBA candidates, those without permits to remain in the US post their studies, follow a dangerous strategy for their internship interviews. This podcast offers a very simple but highly effective strategy to ensure candidates keep themselves in the running for consulting offers. Moreover, keeping residency in the US is a vital prerequisite to maintain a candidates “risk profile” and this podcast again offers some ideas.

It is indeed a rare moment when the Worldwide Managing Partner of Bain calls a client to encourage him/her to accept an offer. We have had similar situations happen on a handful of occasions to clients. It is an accomplishment and should be celebrated. That does not mean the offer should be accepted.

Clients we place into McKinsey etc from the so-called tier-2 firms like Booz, Deloitte, KPMG etc always think they will struggle most with the analytic and other technical elements. We see a flurry of activity, and anxiousness to master story boarding model building, brainstorming and hypotheses development. Our advice to these clients is that this should be the least of their worries. The harsh reality is that they have been pre-wired to think about the wrong priorities on soft-issues, and these intangible areas cause more trouble than they could imagine. Many find that very difficult to understand, so here are some stories based on our own clients’ experiences demonstrating how the soft issues could betray your ambitions.

Too often clients ask the wrong questions when it comes to assessing training at consulting firms: do smaller offices have poorer training, should I attend training as soon as I join, does BCG have better training than Bain etc. When considering training you need to both consider formal and informal training. As we show, formal training is very useful, but not at all for the hard/technical skills it purports to impart on attendees. Informal training, also known as training on an engagement, is most effective when consultants can practice under diverse conditions. In other words, the more you travel and work with foreign teams, the better will be your training. Some firms encourage more global staffing and others far less. That counts.

Reading graphs is a perennial problem for many candidates. Yet, the problem is not the interpretation of the graphical data itself. Rather, it is knowing what to do with that data once you have interpreted it. This podcast introduces a simple 4-step process we introduced for a Yale doctoral client, Felix, and a technique called the One-Sentence-Test which we again developed for the same client. The improvement in her answers warrants sharing this technique. You can see Felix's Improvement in Season One of The Consulting Offer.

The first podcast discusses a common challenge new consultants face: how to show strong analytic skills on an engagement. Here I discuss one of my earlier engagements as a principal where I managed a very introverted lawyer. Despite her non-quantitative degree, reserved demeanor and being placed on a piece of work which was not, at first, open to much creativity, she developed an eminently analytic way to solve a significant problem impacting the entire engagement. This is probably one of the most concise, tailored and innovative pieces of analyses I had ever seen in my career. What makes a consultant analytic, is not the type of work that lends itself to analytic reasoning, but the way you approach what may seem to be a mundane problem. In fact, no sector or engagement is boring if examined appropriately.

This podcast answers the questions raised below, by a client trying to understand how to develop hypotheses in a fairly difficult case. The case looks at ways to increase the US Postal Services market share and profitability. The client has graciously allowed this one detailed response and his notes to be shared in our public section. “A big overarching question I have with the answer first approach is I don’t know if my initial hypothesis should be broad (in which case they cannot be tested with data unless the hypotheses are first refined and narrowed, so I could only ask what areas I would explore to do that) or alternatively to make my initial hypotheses narrow and precise (in which case I can ask for data to test them but if my hypothesis are wrong then I will be stuck). Any thoughts?”

In this podcast we will discuss a client who is very good at influencing the way interviewers work with her, and the subtle danger of her approach. A counter-point to this is another candidate who initially completely mismanaged his image, and we discuss the impact of his actions and what happened when he changed.

In looking through our database of over 240 former clients and speaking to Bain partners we know, we see two unique ways a Bain fit interview differs from a McKinsey PEI. The first relates to way in which you interact with the interviewer as you deliver your response, and the second relates to a very specific attribute that Bain seeks in your fit responses. Both differ substantially from a McKinsey or BCG interview. In fact, EVERY single client we placed at Bain strongly displayed these two characteristics. It is uncanny how close a correlation exists.

Bonus versus salary resumes, is a very simple test we do on resumes. This podcast explains the test. We basically look at whether or not a bullet point explains an action which earned you a salary or would have resulted in a bonus. The latter is vital and the former should be purged from your salary. McKinsey looks for things on your resume which earned you your resume. It is important to understand that merely doing your job is not an achievement in itself.

The economic impact of poor business judgement, is a topic we managed every day as partners. Each time an associate made a poor “common sense” decision we needed to explain both the potential reputation and economic damage done to the firm. The former is well-known, but the latter is less known but just as important. In thinking through why consulting firms look for business judgement, it helps to consider the economic impact to clients and the firm.

Building of our technique to develop hypotheses, this podcast explains a clever way to generate creative hypotheses. In essence, the podcast will be useful to candidates who have already seen how we brainstorm and generate hypotheses, since this podcast expands on that thinking. The core of this idea is that if more than one structure can be brainstormed for a case, each of those structures can be used to develop a new type of hypothesis. This is a very, very simple technique as well.

In this podcast present a clever technique to treat graphs as “maps” when reading them. Corporate Finance candidates will like this. The key to this technique rests on the simple idea of ignoring the data plots and first trying to understand what the type of graph is saying. Once this is clear, the data is then examined within the graph to understand its meaning. The podcast explains this with an example and is a very effective tool we use for teaching clients.

We always ask our clients, especially those from weaker schools, to network with the most senior partners of consulting firms. This is a podcast about a PhD client, from a weaker school and no existing consulting relationships, who painfully followed this advice over several months to network with a member of McKinsey's worldwide leadership and obtain interviews for his office of choice. It is not easy, but can be done. It works.

Lots of candidates leave it to the interviewer to determine the energy levels, tone and mood of the call. That is a bad idea. In our experience, the best candidates always bring a light mood to interviews. Seriousness, can hurt you as it is confused for anxiousness. Delegating the mood to the interview is bad idea since it means the energy of the case will be largely out of your control. Moreover, unless you practice controlling the energy, it is unlikely you will have this skill to deploy in the case interview itself.

Due to culture, tradition and even good intentions, candidates make sexist remarks. Sometimes, a very innocent remark may come across as sexist. This podcast examines some the incidences we have encountered which have hurt candidates in cases. It is wise to think about your own inadvertent sexist behavior.