Üben mit Coaches

Hi Val, for the Tech &AI track at McKinsey, the interview format is largely the same as for standard BA roles; you should expect classic case interviews (profitability,, growth, etc.) with structured problem solving, quantitative analysis, clear communication, ...  The main difference is the context, not the structure:cases may be framed around digital transformation, data, or AI use cases andyou might be asked to discuss high-level tech concepts,but not code or deep technical details In terms of prep, in my opinion,  focus primarily on traditional consulting cases (80–90%) then complement  with some tech-flavored cases (e.g., platform strategy, data monetization, automation impact) Hope this helps, Franco

Hey Victor, No worries: a few years of coaching taught that learning is a non-linear journey :) I think your problem with structuring cases is that you are overthinking the main buckets.  Intro and example My approach is to see buckets as "areas of analysis" you want to see during your case. They do not need to be directly linked to a specific sub-question of the case, but rather should give you a wide pool of analyzed data to then converge on the solution. I always advice my coachees to use this approach because it's just simple and easy: if you start overthinking at 01:00, you are in for a looong interview :) Let's take a standard market entry case: "A global PE fund contacted McKinsey to understand whether they should enter the market of Padel (i.e., a racquet sport, not dissimilar from pickleball) in the US. The sport is pretty popular in Europe, but almost unknown in America, so they are wondering what the size of the market is, what competition could look like, and what services they could offer."   The approach I would suggest for a beginner is this one: Market  - Size, growth, and profitability (i.e., understanding how big the pie is) - Customer segments (e.g., more appealing to 20-40yo or 60+) - Competitive dynamics (e.g., fragmented vs. consolidated) Target business model - Product/Service offering (i.e., what are we selling here?) - Operating model for the PE fund (e.g., buying a few smaller companies and merging, launching a new player, entering with an adjacent Port.Co.) - Capabilities (e.g., operations, labor, assets, etc.) Financial analysis - Investment criteria (e.g., payback, ROI, ...) - Revenue (P*Q) - Costs (FC + VC, incl. investment) Risks - Market-specific (e.g., competition with pickleball, ...) - Firm-specific (e.g., lack of sports management experience, ...)   Why this approach is helpful Let's go a bit more in depth to see why I think this type of structure helps you. 1. It's extremely comprehensive: you are starting with a framework that considers a lot of aspects that one should check out in a real case. Can you really consider a market entry without thinking about customer, competitive dynamics, investment criteria? These would be lacking in a Process approach, or in an approach that uses sub-questions -- the approach above does not leave any stone unturned 2. It's easy to understand: the interviewer can follow you nicely. You avoid taking a bolder/newer approach (e.g. Process, which is more tailored to implementation projects, typically less strategic) and the interviewer instantly recognizes. I am pretty confident that out of 100 McKinsey Senior Partner, 95 of them got in by using this standard approach :) 3. It still follows a process. In a real engagement (I have done more than a few market entries for PE), you would do exactly the same: first, you start the workstream on the Market, then you start thinking how you play in that market (i.e., Target Business Model); once you have gathered those two pieces of info, you can create your business plan (i.e., financial analysis); lastly, you want to caution your client about risks (or maybe 'Implementation and risks') Why the Process approach is more complicated With Process, let's say that you have 4 buckets: (i) Strategy Definition, (ii) Pilot Project, (iii) Implementation - 0 to 1, (iv) Extension - 1 to 10. A few issues: 1. The 'Strategy Definition' bucket is so broad, that it's hard to be comprehensive/exhaustive within this bucket. You would almost need to replicate my buckets above: a strategy needs info on customers, competitors, needs a financial analysis, potentially risks, etc. 2. The content of the next buckets is heavily dependent on the first: what can you say about Pilot Project if you don't know what the strategy is (e.g., roll-up of padel courts vs. entering with a PE-owned company doing a spin-off) 3. You are implying something you don't know about the client engagement: what if the client doesn't care about implementation (e.g., most PE funds have an implementation or operating improvement team)? Then, you threw away one bucket --> Is the Process approach always wrong? No! But it's harder because it's more specific and has a structural dependency from Bucket1 to Bucket2 ... to BucketN. If the question is about "Launching a product", then it might make more sense, but a lot of cases are not a good fit for this approach Why the sub-question approach is more complicated Let's take the three sub-questions as buckets: (i) what the size of the market is, (ii) what competition could look like, and (iii) what services they could offer. 1. You are missing the main point (i.e., would this be a profit-generating business with a good ROI)? That's because the real answer to the case might be the logical consequence of the three questions you are asking (on top of some more elements), but it's a different analysis that requires different instruments (i.e., revenue and cost estimates, investment criteria, etc.) 2. You are not being super-MECE. Very often, two questions are intertwined: here, you are splitting market between the size and the competition -- but those are two sides of the same coin. When you do a market analysis for a company, you tell the not just the $$$ but also the competitive landscape, I don't love dividing these two things in different buckets. 3. You sound very mechanical. A big part of every real MBB project is taking the questions the client has and transforming them into a coherent plan of attack (with workstreams, deliverables, etc.). My experience showed me that the client might be missing some angles or might be asking only 1 of the 3 real questions. If you just repeat what you hear, you don't sound like someone that can rethink problems/questions from a different perspective -- while I am sure you are a very nuanced thinker! --> Is the sub-question process always wrong? No! It's great when you have three self-contained, fairly independent tasks. I don't think this is the right case for that: the main task we have to deliver is giving an answer to a broader question (absent from the sub-question), i.e., is this a market we should enter? Conclusion My key takeaways: The standard "areas of analysis" approach is by far the easiest to start with (and, again, probably used by 95% of McKinsey Senior Partners in their interviews 15-20 years ago) All the frameworks that you see are just potential examples. Every structure must be fully tailored (both in its main buckets and underlying bullet points) to the specific nuances of the case at hand A very helpful way to view these frameworks is as "potential puzzle pieces." You should select and assemble the right pieces based on the specific needs of the prompt you are given. My answer to your question "why do I keep getting lost?" is that you are probably overthinking with very complex approaches :)))) Do I have to always use the standard approach? No! Start from the simplest one, but then feel free to add more layers of complexity once you feel more confident For advanced candidates: if you are able to formulate a solid hypothesis based on the initial clarifying questions, it is highly encouraged to include that at the beginning/end of your structure. For instance: "My initial hypothesis is that this is a highly fragmented market, and therefore, leveraging M&A could drive growth and capture economies of scale, provided it is financially feasible." I hope this helps, but please let me know if you have other questions. While coaching at Berkeley, I built a pretty comprehensive guide on MBB Structure Frameworks.  Feel free to DM me if you are interested in it (the invite is open to everyone!). It helped a ton of coachees learn enough "puzzle pieces" to then compose their best structure in a few seconds. Best, Tom

Hi, I’ll be very direct,  as I think that’s the most helpful. In your current situation,your chances of breaking into top-tier consulting (MBB) are extremely low. This is mainly due to your profile; firms in Saudi Arabia typically recruit from very selective universities and look for strong, consistent academic and professional trajectories. That said, this doesn’t mean you have no chance long term; it just means you’re not competitive today. One important point: you need  to demonstrate stability and commitment to an employer. Right now,  moving between roles after short periods (2–6 months) is hurting your profile. Consulting firms look for people who can commit, grow, and deliver impact over time; frequent job changes send the opposite signal If consulting is truly your goal,I would suggest: Staying in your current role (or the next one) for a meaningful period and building solid experience Targeting roles where you develop relevant skills (operations, problem solving, stakeholder management) Considering further education(e.g., a strong Master’s or MBA) Looking at Tier 2  or smaller consulting firms first as a stepping stone Right now, the priority is not getting into consulting immediately, but building a profile that makes  it realistically achievable. Hope this helps Franco

Hi there, I can relate a lot to what you’re describing — and honestly, this is a very typical phase after a few years in consulting. You’ve seen a lot, learned a lot… but it starts to feel a bit “all over the place.” A couple of things that might help you think about it more clearly. First, I wouldn’t put too much pressure on the idea of a single “career passion.” In practice, most people don’t find it in one shot. It’s usually more iterative — you notice what you enjoy a bit more, you move in that direction, and it becomes clearer over time. In your case, the retail/consumer interest is already a useful signal. It may not be “the answer,” but it’s definitely not random either. If you consistently enjoy those problems more, that’s worth taking seriously. What I’ve found helpful is to separate the question a bit, instead of trying to solve everything at once. For example: Do you actually want to stay in consulting as a way of working (variety, pace, external perspective)? Or are you more drawn to owning something and seeing it through over time (which usually points more toward in-house roles)? That distinction is often more important than the industry itself. Then on the industry side, you don’t need to be 100% sure. You just need a direction that feels more interesting than the alternatives. Retail seems to be that for you right now. Given that, both paths you mentioned make sense: either try to move closer to consumer/retail within consulting (even if it means switching firms) or move in-house and go deeper in that space There’s no “perfect” choice here — it’s more about what you want to optimize for next. One thing I would strongly recommend is not trying to figure this out only in your head. Talk to people. A few conversations with people in retail strategy roles (both in consulting and in-house) will give you much more clarity than weeks of thinking. Also, don’t worry too much about “locking in” at 35. You’re not choosing your last job — you’re choosing your next step. And it’s completely fine if that step just gets you closer, not all the way. If I simplify it, I’d do this: lean into the retail signal → decide whether you want consulting vs. in-house → test it through conversations / exposure → then make a move. That’s usually how people get out of this “stuck” feeling.   Best, Soheil

Hi, Short answer: no in practice, candidates are not rejected after a single interview within the first round. In my experience  (having conducted many interviews), decisions are made after completing all interviews in the round, not midway. In theory  extreme cases could exist (e.g., a candidate being clearly unfit), but I’ve never personally seen it happen. On structure, most interviews follow a similar format: fit/PEI  + case +your questions, but there is some flexibility: Each interviewer decides how to split the time Cases can vary (quantitative vs qualitative, with or without charts, conventional vs more open-ended) The more senior the interviewer, the more variability you may see; in later rounds, some may even keep the case shorter and more discussion-based On rejection:it’s important to remember that rejection is the norm; ~90% of candidates don’t pass.That said, candidates  are rarely rejected for a single small issue. You are assessed on a full set of skills; one mistake alone  usually does not lead to rejection, it’s an overall evaluation.  More typically, rejection comes from: Lack of clear structure or inability to drive the case Weak communication (not necessarily language; more about clarity and logic) Difficulty extracting insights from data and linking back to the question On your specific concern: being a non-native speaker is not a problem per se. What matters is: being clear and structured taking a moment to think before speaking communicating your logic step by step English is important, but expectations can vary quite a bit depending on the office. WHat office/location are you applying to? Hope this helps, and good luck with your preparation! If you want to go deeper, feel free to DM me Best, Franco

Hey, At least for the post-MBA role, the average wait time in the US for Kearney from my friends was 1-2 weeks (with the median probably closer to one week), so I expect something similar for the junior roles. However, keep in mind that the last few weeks have been weird; firms might still be trying to assess the impact of the new geopolitical happenings on staffing needs. In any case, I would write back after 15-20 days if you have not heard anything :) Best, Tom

Hey, The test is pretty common, almost standard. From what I’ve heard (late 2025), it is heavier on data questions (e.g., graphs, thinking in terms of growth or margin percentages) than most consulting tests. I would ensure you know how to read the most common graph types and answer questions where you have to quickly calculate data based on them. You might also expect some multiple-choice "situational questions" (e.g., "In your team, you have one person behaving in way X and another in way Y; you notice some tension. How would you manage this?"). Just FYI: these tests change fairly often, as Recruiting teams are continuously A/B testing what works best and rotate questions or types every 1-2 years once they realize people have become too familiar with them. Good luck! Tom

Hi there, I like that you are thinking about this early — but I’d be careful not to overestimate how much a dual degree by itself moves the needle in recruiting. Having business + engineering is definitely a strong combo. It signals you’re quantitative and also understand the commercial side. That’s attractive for consulting, tech, product roles, etc. So yes, all else equal, it can make your profile a bit more interesting. But in reality, recruiters don’t sit there and say: “this person has two degrees, so hire.” They care much more about things like: what you actually did (internships, projects) how you think and communicate whether you’ve shown leadership or impact I’ve seen candidates with “perfect” academic profiles (including dual degrees) who struggled, and others with simpler backgrounds who did very well because their experience and story were stronger. Where the dual degree does help is if you use it well. If it just sits on your CV as: “BBA + Engineering”, it doesn’t add much. But if you can say: “I’ve worked on problems at the intersection of tech and business — for example…” then it becomes much more powerful. That’s when it actually differentiates you. Also worth thinking about the trade-off. A dual degree takes time and energy. If it comes at the expense of internships, networking, or leadership experience, it might not be the best trade. So the way I’d think about it is: do it if you’re genuinely interested in that mix and want to build a profile around it — not just because you think it will boost recruiting chances. If I had to summarize it simply: it’s a nice plus, but it won’t replace strong experience and a clear story. Best, Soheil  

Hey Anonymous, First of all: you are not alone, I remember how complicated it seems to face these choices at a very young age. And, from your story, it seems like you have already done a lot and are an incredibly proactive person -- kudos! However, answering to your question is almost impossible: you are comparing two institutions (Nova and UW) that frankly tend to be very similar. Both are very prestigious, they have similar rankings, they probably send a good number of students to MBB every year. Even Marketing and Management are not that different! The reality is that many other things in your life will co-determine what kind of job you will get. Getting a specific job is not a deterministic process where you can confidently say "I need to go to Uni X vs. Uni Y, because I will get a 30-50% higher change of working for McKinsey". There are too many factors (your internship, your interests, the specific needs of the office, the economic cycle, etc.) to control for. A Management program might be more aligned, but also more people will apply to MBB and so you might be less likely to stand out. The only good advice that I can give you is making a choice that you think will make you generally happier. Here, *generally* means in the average outcome, and not only in the xx% outcome where you land an MBB job straight out of undergrad.   If you want to do more Strategy than Marketing/Analytics in your life, then switching might make sense if that's driven by genuine passion, maybe less so if driven by an unproven y% in improvement in your job prospects. And are you sure that your current degree gives you statistically significant lower chances of getting the work you need? When I was facing a similar choice, what helped me a ton was speaking with alumni. I was worried that my "favorite" MSc. program could have limited career opportunities, but speaking with five Alums showed me my assumption was totally baseless :) Good luck on your endeavors! Tom PS: Fwiw, keep in mind that my colleagues at McKinsey had every kind of degree: Management or Finance for sure, but also Marketing, Humanities, Design, Engineering, Biotech, etc. Also, many of them joined McKinsey much later in their life, so any choice you make you'll have more than a few opportunities to do strategy consulting.