Speed issue?

Hi!

I believe you have to be EXTREMELY careful with this feedback that you have received ("You need to be faster!"). It sounds to me that you are practicing with people who do not know very well what they are talking about!

"Speed" is NOT part of the assessment criteria in any of the three MBB firms! And it makes sense - the interviewer will always assume that the way you behave in an interview is also how you will behave vis a vis clients. For me as an Engagement Manager in McKinsey, there was nothing more dangerous than having a young consultant on the team who tends to give rushed and premature answers to the client, hence destroying credibility in an instant. What is expected from you is the maturity to understand (and communicate) how much thinking effort is needed to come up with a rigorous LOGIC which you can follow robustly.

But I can tell you that this is a very typical concern that candidates have when building their case skills, and it is usually amplified by practicing with peers. However, it is extremely important that you understand that putting yourself under time pressure while practicing is absolutely counterproductive! You first have to learn the right way of approaching and structuring cases, and time is the last concern you should have here! It is like learning an instrument - you first HAVE TO play much MUCH SLOWER than regular in order to be able to properly learn. Speed will come by itself after some time! If you try to force speed too early, you become sloppy and will never really master it!

Moreover, I can promise you that as long as you come up with a rigorous and compelling approach, focusing on the logic according to which you will answer the precise case question (as opposed to just listing buckets you want to look into), the interviewer will immediately forget about any perception of "slowness" he might have had a minute before!

In the tradeoff rigor vs. speed, always prioritize rigor! Always! Speed follows automatically.

Cheers, Sidi

___________________

Dr. Sidi S. Koné

Former Senior Engagement Manager & Interviewer at McKinsey | Former Senior Consultant at BCG | Co-Founder of The MBB Offer Machine™

I don't see a problem here, honestly. Being highly structured and methodic is a positive. Being thorough is a positive. Sure, that takes time, but that's why consultants spend months working on engagements. 

The only negative would be if you are adding a lot of complexity at the expense of pragmatism. This may happen in a market sizing exercise, for example, or when deploying another thorough analysis.

In this case, the problem is not being thorough or slow. The problem is not checking with the interviewer if you need to go that deep during the interview. To give a specific example: a good business plan or a good market model will consider a lot of drivers and segments, but exploring all of those in an interview is impossible given the time counstraints. But you would do it in real life. So how do you solve this conundrum? Simple: you start by explaining the logic you would follow if had the time, and ASK the interviewer if you should proceed that way or if you should simplify for the sake of time management. If that level of depth is what is expected the interviewer will ask you to proceed, otherwise will remove a couple of “branches” or “segments” from your analysis or structure.

I would also like to second Sidi's comment on relative relevance of speed vs. performance. Indeed it is important to know how to do things well first, and then speed will come naturally and gradually. There's zero gain if you become faster at the expense of quality.

When it comes to discerning whether a case requires an in-depth exploration of a few elements or a broader overview of numerous components, it's important to consider a few factors:

Case prompt and context: Pay close attention to the case prompt and any additional context provided. This will give you clues about the complexity and scope of the case. If the prompt suggests a multifaceted problem or mentions multiple areas to explore, it's likely that the case requires a broader overview.

Time constraints: Take note of the time constraints given for the case. If you have limited time to solve the case, it's a signal that you may need to navigate through different components more swiftly and prioritize key areas for analysis.

Clarity of objectives: Understand the specific objectives of the case. If the case has clearly defined objectives that can be achieved through a focused analysis of a few elements, it indicates that a more in-depth exploration of those elements is needed.

Interviewer cues: Pay attention to any cues or hints provided by the interviewer during the case. They may guide you towards the areas that require more attention or indicate when it's appropriate to move on to the next component.

In general, it's important to strike a balance between depth and breadth when solving a case. While some cases may require a more comprehensive analysis, others may necessitate a more focused approach. Practice and experience will help you become more adept at quickly assessing the case dynamics and adapting your approach accordingly. Keep refining your skills, and I'm confident you'll improve your ability to navigate through different case components effectively. Good luck!

Hi there,

I couldn't agree more with Sidi here!

You have to be very very careful with advice and, importantly, how to implement it.

The most important thing is getting the right answer. THEN you want to speed up. (Federer didn't start out hitting the ball 180 mph BUT he did start out getting the ball in the court).

Get the ball in the court, and then speed up steadily. Make sense?

How? Honestly, coaching is going to be your best best.

Secondarily, you need to be objective-driven. Filter out and process through information rapidly. Stay on topic. Filter out the noise. Figure out what matters and what doesn't.

Look for differences in numbers and then look at the so what of those differences with the objective in mind.

Honestly, all of the above is “clear enough” but the best way to truly get this mindset shift is by running through deep-dive/tailored/guided exercises with a coach. I've developed several optimal cases that teach/train just this - feel free to reach out!

I think the below Article will be helpful for you. Importantly, check out the case links and the associated Video walkthroughs so you can see what good looks like!

https://www.preplounge.com/en/articles/candidate-led-cases-what-to-expect-and-example-cases
 

This sounds familiar to me. 

If I have to take a guess, you probably received this feedback from peer practice? 

The thing is, with most interviewers, you don't need to ‘finish the case’. Especially with interviewer-led cases, but also with candidate-led. 

The interviewer basically wants to test some things. They choose during the interview to go in one direction or the other, to give you more help or less, based on what they are interested in seeing. This is why in more than half of interviews you don't even get to the ‘recommendation’. 

Instead, what you should be focusing on, is progressing at your fastest pace WHILE PRIORITISING QUALITY AND DEPTH. Never compromise quality for speed. The interview itself is not a speed test (which is often the perception within peer practice) but a structured conversation that is meant to be deep and insightful. 

Best,

Cristian

———————————————

Practicing for interviews? Check out my latest case based on a first-round MBB interview >>> SoyTechnologies  

Hi,

This is a great question. I really like Sidi's answer here. 

I'll add more nuance based on my time as an interviewer. Of all the candidates that I have rejected, the reasons for rejection have been because of weakness in core skills (e.g. problem solving, structuring, quant). As an interviewer, I have not rejected a candidate before because he is “too slow”.

Be careful with peer feedback honestly.. many do not know what real interviewers will evaluate you on.. Ping me for a free coffee chat to tell you more, Warm regards, Frederic 

Hi there,

Q: How can I discern when a case demands an in-depth look at few elements versus when it calls for a broader overview of numerous components as I'm working through it?

The points to cover to answer a question depend on the question itself. If the question/objective is not clear, you can clarify it with the interviewer before structuring an answer.

If you find you are particularly slow with some questions, it could make sense to try to identify which are those questions and why you are spending more time there. Once identified that, you can check if there is a real issue or not (possibly you are spending more time simply because the question is more difficult). If you do identify an issue, you can then try to find a solution for those specific types of questions.

Best,

Francesco

Hi there,

I don't see this feedback coming from any PrepLounge coach or real MBB interviewer. Key here is structure and top down communication. During real interviews you are allowed (and interviewers also expect) that you take your time to collect your thoughts as long as your answers remain structured.

Happy to keep talking about this in private, just send me a message.

Best,

Alberto

—

Check out my latest case based on a real MBB interview: Sierra Springs

Hi there,

Don't worry about this type of feedback. I've heard it 1,000,000 before and it's not really helpful. Here's my take on two possible scenarios:

• Candidate-led: Most cases are in this style and require you to drive to an answer. This also gives you the freedom to ‘park’ certain sub-cases and/or identify areas for further analysis, making your recommendation conditional. So long as you're transparent and explicit in your assumptions, you'll be fine. If an interviewer starts interfering and taking control, they're essentially changing up the style to interviewer-led and it becomes their responsibility to manage time and speed. Bottom-line: a case can't be candidate-led and interviewer-led at the same time!
• Interviewer-led (McKinsey): This case style is very different and almost exclusively used by McKinsey. The fundamental difference is that the firm doesn't want you to solve the case, they want you to answer specific questions about the case. There's almost never a final recommendation (as far as the script goes). And from my perspective as a former McKinsey interviewer, I would rather see you answering 3x questions really well and ‘slow’ than failing really fast by answering 7x questions poorly. That being said, you shouldn't be super slow, of course, but also not rush the questions. Bottom line: The interviewer will guide you and time management is essentially their responsibility, not yours.

Hope this helps a bit. Best of luck!

Moritz

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Need a senior McKinsey coach? See my profile in a nutshell
>> Need real McKinsey cases? See two real examples with Zero Carbon Mine (hard) & Car Convenience (Intermediate + brand new)