Yesterday I took the seawolf game in Mckinsey, out of three scenarios I was able to find 100% solutions for only the first two, on the third one I did not find combinations in which all the traits were in range so I chose a suboptimal combination.
Is it a bad thing?
It's not a great thing in the sense that you could've done better.
I guess the question is whether it's sufficient. And this question is honestly also impossible to answer.
When the recruiters assess your application, they look at the Solve score, at the CV, the cover letter, at the referral (if applicable), they conisder it against the requirements of the role, the hiring target they have and the other candidates in the cohort. Based on this they figure out whether to invite you to the next round or not.
So as you can see, a lot goes into making the decision, so not performing well on one component of the game will never give you a clear indication of whether you'll pass screening or not.
Hope you hear back soon from them and get good news!
Best,
Cristian
Hey there,
not at all. The Sea Wolf game is designed to see how you approach complex, ambiguous problems, not whether you get a perfect answer every time. Struggling with the third scenario and picking a reasonable suboptimal solution shows your problem-solving under uncertainty, which is exactly what they are looking for. As long as you can explain your reasoning and trade-offs, it’s not a negative.
best, Alessa :)
Hi there,
It's hard but try to not overthink it. Whether or not this is a bad thing is hard to say so I suggest you to not jump to conclusions and wait for results. McKinsey is not looking for flawless answers on every scenario. They care much more about how you reason through the problem, stay calm, and make sensible tradeoffs when a perfect solution is not available. Choosing a thoughtful suboptimal option is usually better than forcing something that does not make sense.
