How strictly should I commit to being objective orientated?

Question

Hi all,

In a profitability case where the objective is to identify the key drivers behind declining profitability, how strictly should I interpret the instruction to “identify the areas”?

For example, if I’m analyzing a restaurant and notice in the data that delivery sales have dropped and rent has increased, should I:

(1) Take a focused approach and briefly highlight the top 1–3 issues (e.g., “delivery sales have fallen” and “rent costs are rising”), or

(2) Take a more analytical approach and substantiate my points (e.g., “delivery sales fell by 15%, which is significant, and rent is 20% higher than competitors, so these are the most impactful areas to prioritize”)?

My instinct is to go with the latter — being more precise and analytical — but I wonder if that might go beyond what the interviewer is actually asking. Any thoughts on how literally we should interpret such instructions during a case?

Thanks in advance!

Answer 1

Great question and your instinct is spot on.

In a profitability case, when asked to “identify the areas” behind a decline, you should aim for a mix: a focused but analytical approach. That means:

Prioritize the top 1–3 issues, but
Back them up with data and logic, even briefly; this shows business judgment and structured thinking

For example:
“Delivery sales have dropped by 15%, which accounts for half of revenue, that’s a key driver. Additionally, rent is 20% higher than peers, suggesting fixed costs are pressuring margins.”

This shows you’re not just listing symptoms, but actually sizing and prioritizing impact, which is exactly what interviewers look for.

Tip:

If unsure, start by saying:
"I’ll identify the top drivers based on the data provided, focusing on the most material issues."
This signals that you're interpreting instructions thoughtfully and applying business logic, a core MBB skill.

So yes, stay concise, but be analytical. That’s the sweet spot.

Answer 2

Hello,

If numbers are provided, you should always use them to prioritize next steps. Always.

Also, “sales fell by 15% and that is significant” —> avoid qualify numbers if you don’t have data to support your conclusion. If market as a whole fell by 30%, for instance, that statement wouldn’t make sense.

You should analyze the numbers compared to each other and to a benchmark in order to prioritize, and qualify only after having a proxy/goal/indicator.

Let me know if you have additional questions.

Best,

Mari

Answer 3

Your instincts are right.

When you can prioritise, and have the data to support it, you should definitely do it.

At the same time, make sure your upfront structure allows also for flexibility and breadth. Meaning, if the potential to solve the problem is not where your hypothesis was situated, then you should be able to go back and then down a different road.

You might find this article helpful as well:

Expert Guide: Mastering Structuring & Brainstorming

Best,
Cristian

Answer 4

It’s a mix of both.

Always be top-down, highlighting key insights and laying out how you’ll navigate the case—but combine that with an analytical mindset, quantifying the issues and solutions you explore along the way.

Best,

Alberto

—

Explore my latest case inspired by a real MBB interview: Sierra Sprints - New Product Launch

Answer 5

I think the phrasing of your question is actually less about being 'objective oriented', but rather a question around communication.

In general, what is more important is the insight - i.e. the analysis shows that sales have fallen. But consultants love numbers - because they help to make things tangible and substantiate our answers.

I would say if the data is there, then yes be specific and refer to it. It also helps the interviewer to be confident that you are 1) using the right data and 2) interpreting the data in the right way.

Answer 6

Yes, focus on the objetive.

Yes, use numbers.

And yes, dig deeper on the root causes of the issues you found.