Schedule mock interviews on the Meeting Board, join the latest community discussions in our Consulting Q&A and find like-minded Interview Partners to connect and practice with!
Back to overview

McKinsey Interview - Choosing Relevant Buckets, While Being Creative

Context: Am preparing for McKinsey Final Round w/ Partners (who probably care about nitty grittyies of MECE, buckets, etc)

A sample case I did had a question of "Bank Sees A Decline In Profits And Wants To Reverse It.. How Would You Go About Doing This"

Naturally, I did 3 buckets: 1) Ways to increase Revenues, 2) Ways to decrease Costs, and 3) why not have a catch-all bucket about "Understanding the Decline" reasons wherein I would go into Customers, Market, Competitors. 

Asked an Ex-McKinsey mentor and they said I didn't even need bucket #3. I just need to stick to the pure profitability framework and never mix frameworks (e.g mix profitability + CCC frameworks)... I think he was also worried that Market, Consumer, etc would not be Mutually Exclusive with my ideas on increasing revenues/decreasing costs

Moreover, sample answer below doesnt even have Revenue and Costs(weird!) My mentor said this sample answer below is wrong.. To be honest my own answer was completely different focused on ways to logical/creative ways to increase Revenues and decreasing Costs... Unless the words "How Would You Go About Doing This" have some sort of specific meaning, my approach should be equally correct

 

So my question to everyone: To keep things collectively exhaustive and show im creative/considering major factors, should I try to bring in "market", "customers", "competitor" buckets into Profitability cases like this (as long as I ensure no mutual overlap with Revenues/Costs buckets)? Also, should I try to be super creative and have buckets like "Societal Impacts", etc or only do those when extremely relevant

3
< 100
0
Be the first to answer!
Nobody has responded to this question yet.
Earth
Coach
22 hrs ago
Special Buy-1-Get-1-Free! First 5 Clients Only. Coach with Ex-McKinsey Associate Partner, Google, Chief Digital Officer

Hello, this is a great question and a common point of confusion for many candidates. Your ex-McKinsey mentor is absolutely correct: you did not need the third bucket.

The most important concept here is MECE. A partner wants to see you break a problem down into its most fundamental parts that don't overlap.

When a case explicitly asks how to fix a "decline in profits," the most logical way to do that is to look at the two things that make up profit: Revenues and Costs. That's it. Everything else you might look at is just a sub-part of one of those two.

Your third bucket, "Understanding the Decline," is a common mistake. It’s a diagnostic bucket, not a solution-oriented one. The insights you get from looking at customers or competitors will naturally lead you back to a revenue or cost issue. For example, if you find out a competitor is lowering their prices, that's a revenue problem. Including a separate bucket for it breaks the MECE rule because it's not truly separate from revenue.

You asked about being creative. The answer is yes, but your creativity should be shown within the structure.

At McKinsey, creativity isn't about inventing a new framework. It's about being incredibly specific and insightful within the one you're using. You can show this by getting very specific about what a bank's revenues and costs look like.

Instead of just saying "increase revenue," you could say "Let's look at revenues by breaking them into price (interest rates, fees) and volume (number of clients, number of transactions). For volume, we could explore cross-selling new products to existing clients."

This shows you can think creatively about the specific business while still staying within a perfectly logical and MECE structure.

Your approach was fundamentally correct, and the sample answer your mentor showed you was likely flawed in its structure. Trust your instinct to stick to the pure profitability framework for a problem like this. It is the most robust and professional way to solve it.

Alessa
Coach
19 hrs ago
10% discount in August |xMcKinsey & Company | xBCG | xRB | >400 coachings | feel free to schedule an intro call for free

Hey there :)

For McKinsey interviews, especially final rounds with partners, what matters most from my experience is: clarity, logic, and tailoring to the exact question. A few key points for your situation:

  1. Profitability cases: The cleanest, MECE way is indeed Revenue vs. Costs. That’s the backbone. If profits are declining, they must come from one or both sides. That’s why many McKinsey interviewers expect you to start there.
  2. Context buckets: Things like Market, Customers, Competitors are not “wrong,” but they usually fall within Revenue/Cost drivers rather than as a separate top-level bucket. For example:
  • Customers → tie to revenue drivers (volumes, pricing, churn)
  • Competitors → tie to market share and pricing power (again revenue)
  • Regulations → tie to costs

So instead of having a third “understanding the decline” bucket, you can integrate those ideas directly into Revenue and Cost. That keeps you MECE and still allows you to show creativity.

  1. Being creative: Creativity is great, but it has to stay relevant. Adding “Societal impacts” in a profitability case would feel forced unless the case prompt explicitly mentions regulatory or ESG angles. Partners prefer sharp, relevant thinking over being abstractly creative.
  2. The sample you saw: Sometimes “expert frameworks” online look different (Market, Operations, Customers, Marketing). That’s more like a growth strategy or diagnostic structure. In a McKinsey interview, simpler and more rigorous is better: Profit = Revenue – Costs, then adapt sub-branches with context.

So bottom line:
Start with the Profitability tree. Enrich it with contextual factors (market, competitors, customers) inside the relevant branches. Don’t add extra catch-all buckets unless the case clearly calls for it. Creativity is rewarded when it’s directly linked to solving the client’s problem, not when it’s just decorative.

best,
Alessa :)

Anonymous A
3 hrs ago
Hi Alessa thanks for your response to my question! I was wondering if the Case question of "How Would You Go About Doing This" is why the sample answer was more like a growth strategy or diagnostic structure?

Do I have to be aware of nuances like that (e.g. whether the question is "find ways to increase profits" vs "how would you go about doing this" wherein u are ideating how u would collect the data rather than ideating ways to increase profits)..... Or maybe both of these questions are asking the same thing basically and I'm overthinking and I should stick to a deep & MECE profitability framework
14 hrs ago
#1 Rated & Awarded McKinsey Coach | Top MBB Coach | Verifiable success rates

I see you've received some content answer already, so I won't repeat that point. 

I wanted though to push back on your assumption that McK Partners care about the nitty-gritty of MECE. Actually, I'd say they care less on average than first round interviewers. 

What they care more about is whether they see you as client ready. As in, would they trust you in front of a client with your current way of thinking, approach, way of engaging? So in that sense, they care more about your emotional intelligence rather than how perfect those buckets are. 

Best,
Cristian

Similar Questions
Consulting
McKinsey or BCG US Advanced Degree Candidate
on Aug 23, 2024
USA
5
1.7k
53
5 Answers
1.7k Views
Consulting
Differences between McK R1 and final round?
on Aug 24, 2024
USA
4
1.8k
56
4 Answers
1.8k Views
Consulting
McKinsey Miami, Chicago, NYC and Atlanta offices
on Oct 01, 2024
USA
3
3.3k
50
3 Answers
3.3k Views
Consulting
How Many Interviews To Expect For McKinsey Associate Position in USA?
on Nov 15, 2024
USA
3
1.7k
28
3 Answers
1.7k Views
Consulting
How Long Does Recruiter @ McKinsey Take To Move Forward
on Nov 21, 2024
USA
6
1.3k
47
6 Answers
1.3k Views
Show more