What are the different approaches to cases depending on the firms?

Question

Hello everyone,

Last night I practiced the "Bain Final Round: Pharmacy Delivery Entry" case with someone (many thanks to them by the way), and although I did a good job overall, for the feedback part, the person told me that when you case at Bain, they like when a candidate thinks in "large umbrellas" without going into too much details at first for structuring or during the case. If I understand correctly: Bain looks for someone who looks at the big picture firstly.

I know there are common things consulting firms control for when casing for a candidate (structured thinking, case leadership, business acumen, problem solving etc), but it seems that they also look for different approaches to solving these cases depending on which firm is interviewing you.

So my question is this: how does that approach change according to the firm that interviews you? I'd like to focus on the MBBs specifically, but insight on other firms like Oliver Wyman, Roland Berger etc would be really helpful as well.

Thank you in advance for your answers!

Answer 1

Hi!

As someone who has helped candidates at many different firms (MBBs, Monitor Deloitte, Strategy&, and some boutiques like AC&C, etc.), there is no right or wrong way to approach a case.

You simply need to be structured, and break-down the problem:

1. In your structure, clearly define your buckets:

You have three "buckets," "pillars," or "arms". Example: for this P&L approach, I will use three buckets, which are: 1.Revenue, 2.Costs, and 3.External Factors.

2. Be MECE:

Sounds cheesy, but it rings true. MECE stands for Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive. What does this really mean?

Mutually Exclusive means there is absolutely no overlap between each piece of your structure (so there's no revenue data in the cost bucket)
Collectively Exhaustive means all the pieces combined leave no gaps; they cover the entire problem.

The details of all your three pillars must cover all the relevant variables, and they must be themed correctly.

3. Overall, be methodical and easy to follow:

You must approach everything clearly, methodically, and in an easy-to-follow manner. This includes your quant and creative work e.g. for your quantitative work, you can follow a clear five-step process:

Gather the necessary data.
Create a specific method (your formula-whatever it may be).
Word it out without calculating (e.g. The breakeven denominator will be x, and the numerator will be y). This allows your interviewer to correct you if need be.
Calculate.
End off with a "so-what" for the overall question.

All firms are looking for a logical, structured thinker. There is simply no right or wrong way to cut a cake.

Happy to chat :)

Answer 2

You’re right — while all firms assess the same core traits (structured thinking, problem solving, communication), the style they lean toward can vary. At Bain, there’s definitely a preference for practical, answer-first thinking — meaning they value candidates who start with a big-picture hypothesis and then structure around solving that. It’s less about presenting a perfect framework and more about quickly identifying where the real problem is and driving toward a recommendation that would work in the real world. Bain likes people who think like team leads, not just analysts.

At McKinsey, the interviews are more structured and hypothesis-driven. BCG tends to sit in between.

So yes, while casing fundamentals stay the same, knowing the firm’s “cultural tilt” helps you fine-tune your delivery.

Answer 3

Honestly, having worked with around 400 candidates over the last 4 years preparing them for a variety of firms I think this is bogus.

There aren't exact, specific things that only Bain looks for. Or only BCG. Or only Kearney.

They all look for a set of skills.

And their recruiting process, when it diverges from the norm, might emphasise some things more than others.

But overall, it's pretty much the same thing.

Similarly, even the idea of interviewer led vs candidate led cases is overblown. It's much easier to think of all cases as being candidate led, so that you the candidate can lead through the process and signal that you would know how to navigate the problem-solving process. Even in a traditional 'interviewer led' case, the interviewer will still very much appreciate that.

Hope that makes sense and feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Best,
Cristian

Answer 4

Hi Barnabe,

That’s a very good observation — while all consulting firms assess the same fundamentals (structure, logic, communication, and insight generation), the style and emphasis do differ slightly between firms.

Bain tends to prefer candidates who think in big themes first and then drill down only where it matters. They appreciate a conversational, hypothesis-driven approach and value candidates who show strong business judgment and pragmatism. The key at Bain is to show that you can think like a business owner, not just analyze.

McKinsey focuses more on structured, top-down problem-solving and communication. Their interviewer-led format rewards clarity, logical flow, and precision. They want to see how you think through each step methodically and how you synthesize insights crisply.

BCG sits somewhere in between. They appreciate structured thinking but also value creativity and deeper exploration. It is perfectly fine to brainstorm and show intellectual curiosity, as long as you keep the discussion focused on what is most relevant.

At Tier 2 firms like Oliver Wyman or Roland Berger, interviews can vary more by office, but they often mirror either the McKinsey-style rigor or Bain’s more open, collaborative tone.

In short:

Bain = business-minded, practical, conversational
McKinsey = highly structured, top-down, precise
BCG = balanced, creative, and analytical depth

If you adapt slightly to each firm’s culture while keeping your structure and logic consistent, you will come across as both flexible and confident.