For example, candidates from technical backgrounds naturally have bullets that convey sophisticated analytical work that bolsters their candidacy in the Problem Solving dimension. But with the limited remaining space in their resume, they often miss making their case in one or more of the remaining three dimensions of Personal Impact, Entrepreneurial Drive and Inclusive Leadership.
Take a look at your resume and ask yourself the questions I've laid out below from the perspective of an audience who is unfamiliar with you and is reading this resume for the first time (or you may ask a friend who will be honest with you):
1. Does this candidate have experience with Personal Impact--meaning, influencing groups of people or more senior people to a particular point of view?
2. Have they shown Entrepreneurial Drive--did they take the initiative to pursue a project that, in spite of obstacles, had impact?
3. Is there any evidence here of Inclusive leadership--that this person has experience leading a group of however many people towards successfully achieving a goal?
4. Is there evidence of Problem Solving, such as strategic and/or application of sophisticated analytical or quantitative methods?
What are your honest answers? I'd love to hear any thoughts you have. Have a great 2022!
]]>
Lately I've been thinking about how to lead teams across an organization to work towards a common goal to transform the organization. I've been finding that the 4 components of the McKinsey Influence Model form a robust framework for working towards transformation. Two masters of applying this framework who we can learn from are Mahatma Gandhi and Reverend Martin Luther King Jr..
For example, several hundreds of thousands of protestors participated–and over 60,000 were arrested–as part of Gandhi's Salt March in 1930, a transformational event in India's history. King was one of the prime speakers and helped organize several transformational events in US history such as the Selma-to-Montgomery voting rights marches, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and the March on Washington, which had nearly 300,000 participants. I've attempted to summarize the way they achieved transformation through each of the 4 drivers of the McKinsey Influence Model in this figure:
Imagine if you were a prospective boycott participant in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955. You'd be hearing about the opportunity to participate in a bus boycott (Formal Mechanisms). The leader of the boycott is a young church minister, Martin Luther King Jr., who courageously volunteered to lead the boycott despite the risks it'd bring to his physical safety (Role Modeling). You regularly hear his soaring oratory at events in the community, in which he points out the injustice and hypocrisy of the law requiring certain citizens to sit at the back of the city buses (Fostering Understanding). Plus, this young minister has organized carpools and discounted taxi fares to make it easier for you to participate in boycotting the city buses (Developing Skills). You can see why so many people subscribed and how the Montgomery Bus Boycott was the beginning of a transformational period of leadership from MLK.
I encourage you to think about this 4-component framework for bringing about transformational change across whatever team or organization you are apart of: whether that's growing EBITDA, improving customer experience, or hitting any other target you set.
Did Gandhi fall short of preventing the Partition of British India into India and Pakistan due to not executing in all 4 components as he did so successfully for Independence? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I wanted to share an approach to the "what questions do you have for me" part of the interview that I've recently developed.
In his best-seller Thinking, Fast and Slow, Economics Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman presents his research that scoring job candidates across structured criteria predicts employee future success more accurately than other interviewing methods. Similarly, McKinsey requires its interviewers to fill out a structured score card on job candidate performance as part of interview feedback. So shouldn't the job candidate grill her interviewer using a structured criteria as well?
Bringing this scorecard approach from Kahneman and McKinsey together with the hypothesis-driven problem solving we develop in the case interview, you could lay out a framework like the one below that you could use to conduct due diligence on the job opportunity in your conversation with the interviewer. (Note that the set of 3 category names of "Company", "Role" and "Boss" is taken from interview coach Andrew LaCivita of whom I'm a fan).
Let the interviewer know that you're learning about their company's job opportunity with rigor and a structured approach, and that you'd like to ask at least one question in each of the 3 buckets of your framework as time permits.
]]>
I wanted to share with you a talk about consulting careers that I was invited to give by a large non-profit that promotes entrepreneurship and business networking.
I'm aware that many of us are influenced by family and society to choose a career based solely on either practical considerations (e.g., salary, job security) or idealistic ones (e.g., purpose). In this talk I sought to develop a more robust hybrid approach to evaluate a career option based on the Greek definition of happiness frequently referenced by John F. Kennedy as guiding his decision to enter politics. One highlight shared is research from executive search firms on the most frequent consulting exit opportunities and salaries.
Before you decide whether to watch the 26-minute talk, you can quickly skim the slides here: PDF of slides. The talk is available on YouTube at this link. Thanks so much for your support and I'd love to hear your thoughts!
]]>We've created a printable set of flash cards that you can access using this link:
In order to memorize the generic frameworks I recommend that you review flash cards to test your memory recall. When you review the flashcards, stack them in such a way that the side of the cards facing up is the name of the structure. When you review a particular flashcard, after you see the name of the structure, pull out a sheet of paper and sketch the structure out from memory. Then flip the card over to compare your drawing to the correct answer. This way you practice being able to draw the structure out from memory in the same fashion you would in the interview.
]]>
My advice here is to think through why you want to go into consulting. What do you want out of your time in consulting? What questions come out of that thought process and that you’d want to learn more about that this interviewer may answer for you.
For example, in my case as someone coming from a PhD background, I was curious about how PhD’s develop in consulting, what strengths they already bring and how much their soft skills improve. So I would ask this kind of question to a more junior consultant in the first round who either has a PhD themselves or who has worked closely with PhDs in consulting. I think that demonstrated to my interviewers that I would fit in well with the feedback-focused culture at McKinsey and that I would be open to and take feedback seriously in order to develop my soft skills that PhD’s don’t come in with. Everyone has distinct things they’re interested in learning more about so think through yours. It may interest you to learn about opportunities to do consulting engagements abroad so ask about that.
I want to emphasize that you want to ask questions appropriate for the audience. I would never ask a partner or senior partner in the final round about what it’s like to work with a PhD because at their level, their peers are not freshly minted PhD’s. Instead I would ask them about some idea or trend that I find interesting in their industry of expertise. For example, I’d ask a partner who is focused on oil and gas about recent news involving OPEC. (When I interviewed in the Houston office, I suspected that I’d encounter an oil and gas partner, so I had been reading oil and gas news in the preceding days).
Pay close attention to the background of your interviewer from the biographical information you receive prior to your interview and when they introduce themselves to you. Then try to intersect your interests with their experiences. Another one of my interviewers specialized in public sector work. Public sector was something I wanted to get involved with but it wasn’t at the top of my list. I admitted to him I didn’t know much about McKinsey’s work in the public sector but that I was interested in learning more if there was anything he could share with me. We ended up having a fascinating discussion about work that McKinsey was doing in Colombia.
]]>
The two formats have more overlap than contrast. Both formats test problem-solving and communication in the same way and therefore require you to apply all the methods outlined in this blog.
However, there are two differences you should keep in mind with how you approach the two formats: first, anxiety of awkward silences, and second, perceived expectations for distinct steps of the problem-solving process.
Anxiety of awkward silences
The interviewee-led format is more nerve-wracking for you (the candidate) because the interviewer expects you to fill moments of silence. It’s like filling an awkward silence on a first date. In the interviewer-led format, you don’t have to deal with those awkward silences, but in the interviewee-led format, you do. There are two ways to manage this anxiety.
The first is to ingrain the habits of prioritizing analyses/issues and developing recommendations of the problem-solving process. When you get into the habit of prioritizing issues, you will naturally lay out what is the most important task at hand in order to fill those awkward silences.
When you get into the habit of attempting to develop recommendations, then you will naturally recognize if you are at a stage where you have enough data to recommend a course of action to your client or--if you're not at a stage to make a recommendation--recognize gaps to be filled to make a recommendation. Recognizing those pieces of data you need will trigger another iteration of analysis.
The second way to manage the anxiety unique to the interviewee-led format is by practicing through simulated mock interviews. Be sure to let your case practice partners know that you’d like to practice the interviewee-led format.
Perceived expectations for distinct steps of the problem-solving process
The second way in which the interviewer- and interviewee-led formats are different is regarding the perceived expectations for distinct steps of the problem-solving process. I want to emphasize the word “perceived” here. The expectations for the two processes are actually the same: all consulting firms use the case interview to test the same two skills: problem-solving and communication. You need to do an excellent job of applying all steps of the problem-solving process regardless of the interview format.
But interviewees may perceive the emphasis on certain steps of the problem-solving process to be different in the two formats, particularly for the prioritize issues step and the develop recommendation step that we discussed to mitigate anxiety. In the interviewee-led format, the interviewer expects you to conduct these two steps to drive conversation forward.
However, in the interviewer-led format, you may think that the interviewer is not requiring these two steps because they did not ask for them. For example, the interviewer may ask you to calculate a number, and you think that once you complete the calculation, you’ve answered the question sufficiently. That would be a costly mistake because the expectation is that consultants translate their analyses into recommendations for the client. The take-home point is that in the interviewer-led format, make it second-nature to talk your interviewer through prioritize issues and develop recommendations step in response to every question you are asked.
Otherwise, the skills tested and the approach you should use to prepare are the same regardless of the interview format.
]]>I based this aggressive revenue framework on the concept of return on investment (ROI), since all the growth options involve making an upfront investment to grow revenue. Which option gives you the best bang for the buck? Since investments always involve making a major change to the status quo, it is important to keep risk of those disruptions in mind.
]]>You can understand the M&A framework as a cost-benefit analysis. The “1-time costs” and “Risks” buckets cover the costs; the “Synergies” bucket covers the benefits.
In addition, one advanced concept that you need to understand in order to grasp the M&A framework is that of the “Acquisition premium”, which is the first sub-bucket under “1-time costs.” When one company acquires another, the acquisition price that the two parties agree upon is almost always at a premium over the target company’s market valuation. Otherwise, the target company’s shareholders wouldn’t agree to being bought out. The acquisition therefore only becomes worthwhile to the acquirer if it can gain back that premium through the synergies that will come out of the acquisition.
There are integration costs as well that the acquiring company will incur such as the work to integrate the IT systems, offices, health insurance plans and so on for the two companies. And the acquiring company needs to gain back the cash lost to these integration costs through the synergies achieved as well. Otherwise, the acquisition deal will not be worthwhile.
Regarding the “Opportunity Cost” sub-bucket under “Risks”: the acquisition isn’t the best strategy for the client if there are better companies on the market for them to acquire; if they can achieve the same capabilities and synergies at lower cost and less risk through a joint-venture; or if they can develop these same capabilities and synergies organically from scratch with their own internal capabilities within their desired time frame and at lower cost. ]]>
I’d recommend that you put yourself through 2 to 5 simulated mock interviews per week as the interviewee. Any less than 2 would be insufficient practice of the rhythm and communication of the case interview, and infrequent feedback for guiding your solo practice. Over 5 would leave you with insufficient time dedicated to solo deliberate practice.
Jot down a few notes from each mock interview about which areas you need to focus on so you can use those notes to inform your training regimen. For example, did your case practice partner for 2 consecutive interviews tell you that your math seemed to be difficult to follow? Then increase the frequency with which you practice math by yourself. Being self-aware is critical here. Can you listen to the feedback you are receiving and take it to heart?
However, I believe the most important aspect of your preparation is not the time spent, but how self-aware and deliberate you are in your practice. The best way to plan your training regimen is to do so iteratively based on feedback that you receive in simulated mock case interviews. Pay close attention to that feedback and revise your training regimen based on it. The diagram I'm including in this blog post is a suggested starting point that you should modify as needed based on the feedback you're receiving.
I know that when I went through the preparation process the first time around, I focused on the number of mock interviews that I should hit, but that was a mistake. The volume of practice does not matter. If you practice more but you are practicing negative habits, then your practice is hurting you. You need to be deliberate in your practice and mindful of your weaknesses so you can develop an approach to improve them.
]]>
It’s much like preparing to take the SAT or ACT in your senior year of high school after taking pre-calculus in your junior year. (For international audiences not familiar with the SAT/ACT, it is a college admission exam in the United States that covers content including algebra and geometry). Having those additional math courses beyond the level of math covered in the SAT and ACT is not helpful because those subjects aren’t tested.
But if your coursework has exposed you to those advanced math concepts, then you are more likely to have memorized key math concepts tested on the SAT (i.e., rules of algebra and geometry) and are more likely to appreciate those concepts. Those two characteristics will improve your SAT performance. However, people who have not taken pre-calculus can develop those two characteristics by spending more time memorizing formulas and by developing an appreciation for math.
When we think of this analogy for the case interview, people without business coursework may be less likely to have memorized the key business concepts (e.g., concepts in mergers and acquisitions); and are less likely to enjoy discussing business. Regarding the second point, non-business candidates from engineering backgrounds are less likely to enjoy the creative qualitative parts of the case interview like brainstorming and structuring qualitative questions. Non-business candidates from humanities backgrounds, on the other hand, are less likely to enjoy the math questions on the case interview.
So if you are not from a business background, how can you mitigate these two issues so you can perform as well as someone with a business background? Regarding the first point, spend more time memorizing the generic frameworks to help you consider the practice practices for analysis in mergers and acquisitions questions, entering a new market, profitability and so on. Also, you must pay special attention in the clarifying questions part of the interview to make sure you ask what I call “stupid” questions (i.e., basic background questions that may make you feel stupid when you ask them but are critical to understand precisely before you begin analyzing the problem) to ensure you understand the client’s business sufficiently before you diving into problem-solving mode.
Regarding the second point about enjoying discussing business, if you are someone with a technical engineering type of background who may not have as much of a deep appreciation for creative work, I recommend that you spend more time repeating the exercises that involve using business periodicals: such as practicing brainstorming creative answers to a real company's problems or practicing structuring an approach to solve a real company's problems. These exercises will help you appreciate how creative thinking can have real impact on business problems that companies in the news are facing today.
Now if you’re someone with a more humanities-type of background who may not have as much of a deep appreciation for quantitative analysis, I recommend that you spend more time practicing approaching math questions in case books where you structure an approach and build organized tables. When you are able to repeat this exercise with accurate math, you’ll develop an appreciation for the insights that you can drive from organized math tables with quantitative analysis.
]]>That means that your final round does not differ from the first round, except that your interviewers are more senior and that the decisions made on your candidacy at that point are irreversible (meaning that a “pass” in the final round results in the firm committing to you whereas that is not the case in the first round). The implications of the second point on irreversibility means that the bar or the standard applied to measure your performance in the final round will be higher because the firm has to commit to you at that point. First-round interviewers, when they pass a candidate, are passing the buck to the partners and the office who conduct the final round interviews on that candidate so they will subconsciously let things slide a little more. Recognizing the greater importance of the final round, consulting firms require a greater number of interviews in the final round than the first round.
What does this mean for you and how should you prepare differently in between rounds?
Additional casebooks