Interviewer-led case: structure and gathering information

Hi there,

Great questions! I love how you structured your ask like a framework tree ?

1. I would explain the first level of my framework first before going into the second level. This is important because it keeps your answer organized and the interviewer can point out if you were MECE in your first level structure before getting into the details of each bucket, otherwise you risk your structure getting messy and losing your interviewer while walking them through – especially if you did miss an important bucket. 

2. You do not need to ask for more data/information generally in interviewer-led cases. The exception being if you feel that a calculation cannot be done in the maths/numerical section you may state clearly an assumption and check with the interviewer if this is valid, e.g., assuming a male/female population split of 50/50. 

Happy to answer any further questions and goodluck!

Yousef



 

Hi there,

1) Should I first explain the first main branch/bucket with its sub-branches and when I explained it, should I switch to the second main branch and explain it? 

I would recommend presenting the two main branches first (the first level of your structure), and then providing details for each of them. In this way, the interviewer will know your overall plan upfront.

2) My structure has two branches: internal and external. For the different branches of my structure, should I mention my thoughts (e.g., for internal I see factor a. Factor a can influence …)

Not sure I understood the question. After you have presented the first level of your structure (internal and external) you can indeed present the components of each area and the connection with the question asked.

3) For interviewer led cases, are you still asking for more information and data (I do not mean clarifying questions) but question like: do we have any information on XYZ?

If you feel that's needed for your next steps, you can do so without any issue. If the interviewer feels that you already have all the relevant information, they will simply confirm that's the case.

Good luck!

Francesco

Hi there!

Happy to provide a perspective on these. I'll take your questions one by one.

1. When I have my framework, with lets say two main branches/buckets with each having sub-branches, should I first explain the first main branch/bucket with its sub-branches and when I explained it, should I switch to the second main branch and explain it?

No. Just explain the first level. 

Then once you deep dive into the first area, you can explain it's sub-braches.

Check out ‘The Pyramid Principle’ by Barbara Minto.

2. Lets assume the interviewer asks for factors that influence X. I then draw my structure. And my structure has two branches: internal and external. For the different branches of my structure, should I mention my thoughts (e.g., for internal I see factor a. Factor a can influence … I also see factor b, factor b can influence X …). Or what should I say for each branch how do I switch maim branches best?

Not sure I fully understand the scope of the question, but internal/external is never a good framework because it is terribly overused. 

Top firms expect more creative answers that are generated specifically for the prompt you are given. 

Once you provide the top-down structure, then you should deep dive point by point in each of them

3. For interviewer-led cases, are you still asking for more information and data (I do not mean clarifying questions) but questions like: do we have any information on XYZ? Or are you only doing this in a candidate-led case?

My philosophy is that you should treat all cases as if they are candidate led. As in, you the candidate should be leading and asking all the questions that you believe are necessary for you to form a first opinion. So, in short, yes, ask these questions if you believe they will help you.

You might find this article also helpful:

Expert Guide: Mastering Structuring & Brainstorming

And I also run this masterclass on structuring from first principles if you want to take your structuring to the next level:

Masterclass: First Principle Structuring

Best,
Cristian

Hi there,

1. You need to highlight the areas you want to talk about first briefly (called signposting). For instance:

“I want to discuss two buckets here, first A because, then second B because. Now starting with my first bucket I have three sub-buckets, ….”

2. Yes, you should mention your thoughts and explain yourself. Interviewers not only look at your answers but also at your thinking behind them, hence always justify your ideas (overcommunicate).

3. Yes, you should. This is one of the key misconceptions for McKinsey interviews. Candidates need to hypothetically move the case forward by stating where to go next, even though the interviewer decides the direction from there.

Have a look at the following to guide your prep:

• McKinsey Case Interview
• Personal Experience Interview

All the best,

Florian

Q1: should I first explain the first main branch/bucket with its sub-branches and when I explained it, should I switch to the second main branch and explain it?

Always communicate top down. Share first all your level 1 items. Dive dive on each of them sharing first all level 2 items. Once done, share some level 3 iteams for each level 2.

Q2 : Lets assume the interviewer asks for factors that influence X. I then draw my structure. And my structure has two branches: internal and external. For the different branches of my structure, should I mention my thoughts (e.g., for internal I see factor a. Factor a can influence … I also see factor b, factor b can influence X …). Or what should I say for each branch how do I switch maim branches best?

These are the level 3 elements I mentioned in my previous answer. By the way, if your level 1 is internal and external your framework can be massively improved and tailored to the case. Happy to keep talking about this in private, just send me a message.

Q3 : For interviewer led cases, are you still asking for more information and data (I do not mean clarifying questions) but question like: do we have any information on XYZ? Or are you only doing this in a candidate-led case?

Generally no. The interviewer will provide the information you need as you progress through the case. You should only ask whatever you don't understand about the case context.

Best,

Alberto

1.  Most times it is better to go fully in layers. So telling the two branches first, and then the sub-branches. BUT, in some cases it might be better to fully do a main branch first, and then move to the second brand. Difficult to give you exact answer because there are no rules really. If you share the exact framework and case details over message then I can give you a more specific answer.
2. Same concept as first answer applies. First tell the branches. Then pick one branch and talk about the factors. Then do a transition (for example - “so thats it on the factors in the first dimension, let us look at the factors under the next dimension”). And then go about your business on the rest of it.
3. Ideally, you should still ask and show case leadership and proactiveness in solving the case.

1. You should mention the complete first layer first, before diving within each branch.

2. Yes, you should provide some thoughts on the potential factors impacting each branch. If it is structured and MECE, even better.

3. In general no, that is not the idea. But if there's an additional piece of information you would need in order to make an analysis if COMBINED with the information that was presented to you, you can mention that. While unlikely to get the information, it provides the interviewer with a view on how you would approach the problem in real life.