Case Interview Preparation & Management Consulting | Strategy | Critical Thinking

This extremely detailed podcast offers advice and information on the rise of Sub-Saharan offices – Nigeria and South Africa, the rise of African candidates, types of work done in these offices, the interview process and challenges faced by candidates, key partners, key clients, significant projects, hiring strategies, recruiting firms used, expatriate strategies and more. It is one of several detailed office podcasts we have released for the English-speaking offices.

This podcast looks at how to make estimations when calculating smaller values or working with enclosed spaces like restaurants, the importance of sensitivity analyses and a new limitation of demand-driven cases. This is a very important technique which can significantly improve accuracy and efficiency in case math.

Last week, an associate we placed at BCG emailed with a dilemma. A senior partner and managing director of the firm was visiting her office and she wanted to meet him. Her colleagues told her to forget about it as she was too junior to warrant his attention. Her peers who gave her this advice may have a few years at BCG but they clearly do not understand the culture of the firm at all. Senior partners always make time for consultants and are always looking to meet young and enthusiastic new employees. Giving the strict vetting process, when you join you are merely a young leader, never a young person. This podcast explains my views on this as a former partner.

Going into interviews aspiring consultants will be relying an a huge number of people for help: peers, classmates, consulting alumni, consultants, career counselors etc. This podcast offers some simple suggestions on how to seek and use help without hurting your relationships in the long-term.

A steep hurdle for many candidates is knowing how and when to ask for information / advice from an interviewer. To help our candidates, we developed the barter system / concept to fix this problem using a very simple technique. As explained in the podcast, the concept requires the candidate to first offer the interviewer their thoughts/ideas before asking for anything more. This ensures the candidate does not fall into the trap of asking for information without offering anything in return.

Editing out cliches from Deloitte and Accenture resumes tends to take up the majority of time when we work with candidates from these firms, and the other accounting firms like PWC, E&Y and KPMG. Typically, when we start the editing sessions, it is very difficult for the client to see how vague and misleading their resume really is. This podcast explains this concept and can be used to edit your own resume.

When learning cases, it is far more effective to watch a person on Skype or in person. The problem with merely practicing over the phone or another verbal format is that you cannot observe crucial mannerisms or allow your practice partner to observe you. The only time practicing verbally makes sense is when you have a very experienced person working with you and they can infer things about your performance based on their experience. We advice most clients to practice in person should the opportunity present itself.

This podcast explains why neatness and writing style is so important. It is really surprising how little care candidates take in writing in an appealing way, considering that is all the interviewer can see for the 30-45 minute case. Neat writing will not get you an offer, but it can be an annoying distraction both to you and the interviewer.

Entering BBM with a weak school on your resume can create problems. Though, all of them tend to be created by the candidates themselves. These consultants tend to have so many incorrect preconceived ideas of the firm that even when a McKinsey partner tells them something, they tend to go with their preconceived ideas. As strange as that may sound, that is what we have seen happen in many cases. There are certain things you can do this alter this spiral, should it occur.

As counter-intuitive as this sounds, mathematical precision in cases hurts most candidates. Many candidates focus heavily on being mathematically correct because it is far easier to see if your answer of $230MM is the same as the prescribed answer of $250MM. It is human nature to focus on what can be easily measured versus focusing on what should be measured. Candidates tend to confuse mathematical precision with being analytic. They are not the same and candidates should focus on being analytic, as explained in this podcast.

If you read forums worldwide everyone is obsessed with cracking the case. Yet, most people cannot communicate like a consultant. We hope by reading this post, candidates spend an equal, if not more, time focusing on their communication skills as well. If you cannot speak like a consultant, you cannot be a consultant.

We are not fans of case competitions. They do not teach the skills need by BCG and McKinsey nor do they matter when it comes to interviews. The dean of a European business school recently gave us carte-blanche to design the perfect case competition. This long podcast outlines the approach we took and why we followed this approach.

The rise of Asian female doctoral case candidates is one of the most important trends in management consulting. This is a large and dynamic group of case candidates who are underrepresented in consulting firms, poorly mentored and largely ignored. Consulting firms can do better to manage them, and should. We explain how and why. Since late 2011, Firmsconsulting has actively worked with PhD candidates, females in particular, to understand their unique needs and design techniques to address these needs. Much of this can be seen in Season One of the Consulting Offer with Felix.

Candidates are typically surprised to hear they have been declined for not providing sufficient details in a case interview. It usually surprises them since they believe they have provided more than enough case information detail. The difference comes down to how consulting firms define "detail". They are looking for facts and the relationships between issues, while candidates tend to speak in broader terms and are not very good at identifying and explaining the linkages between issues.

When thinking through a possible FIT / PEI or cover letter response, most candidates settle on the first idea that comes to mind. Future edits of this idea do not alter the idea, but merely rearrange the wording. That is a bad idea. We use the so-what rule when testing candidates. For their responses we constantly ask "so-what" until the candidate arrives at the core reason for their decision / answer. That core reason is what we want candidates to use.

That is true. It is myth interviewers do not hate frameworks in case interviews. Interviewers dislike the way the framework is introduced and used by the candidate. Most candidates memorize a framework, look at a case, see the loose link between both and gladly offer the framework without a proper explanation or even making adjustment to the framework. The best approach is to brainstorm unique structures for each case. However, where this is tough to do, candidates should take time to carefully adjust and integrate the framework into the case, using good communication skills.

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.