Are there any unique differences in McK case interviews for a research analyst position?

Hey there,

In general, you should expect the same type of assessment. However, always clarify with HR in advance so you can prepare properly and there are no surprises!

In the McKinsey case interview you will have to answer three different questions types - broadly speaking:

• Structuring
• Exhibit Interpretation
• Math

Now for Structure and Exhibit Interpretation, there is no right or wrong answer. Some answers are better than others because they are

• deep
• broad
• insightful
• hypothesis-driven
• follow a strong communication (MECE, top-down, signposted)

That being said, there is no 100% that you can reach or the one-and-only solution/ answer. It is important that your answers display the characteristics specified above and supported well with arguments.

As for Math questions, usually, there are answers which are correct (not always 100% the same since some candidates simplify or round differently - which is ok), and others that are wrong, either due to the

• calculation approach
• calculation itself

Now, for the interviewer, the overall picture counts. Mistakes in one area need to be balanced by a strong performance in other areas. McKinsey wants to see spikes in performance in certain areas and a good enough performance in other areas.

The most common example I see almost every day: You can be strong in structure and exhibit, yet make a small mistake in the math section - overall as you might consider 80% - and still pass on to the next round.

On the matter of industry-specific or research-specific cases:

It will be a mix of cases in a domain-relevant context as well as cases set in a completely different context.

Be aware that frameworks were applicable in the 2000 years, the era of Victor Cheng and Case in Point. McK has long caught up on this and the cases you will get during the interviews are tailored in a way to test your creativity and ability to generate insights, not remember specific frameworks.

In fact, it will hurt you when you try to use a framework on a case that calls for a completely different approach. Also, it gives a false sense of security that will translate to stress once you figure out how your approach won't work during the real interview - I have seen this so many times...

Your goal should be to learn how to build issue trees, interpret charts, and perform math no matter the context, industry, or function of the case. I have a system for that, especially for McKinsey cases, that teaches you exactly this approach + a ton of exercises I give my coachees to progress their ability to come up with deep, broad, and insightful answers for each case individually.

As a second step, you will have to go through the PEI, which always consists of the same three stories and the associated dimensions (entrepreneurial drive, personal impact, inclusive leadership).

For each of these dimensions, prepare 2 stories that contain the right content and are communicated in the right way: https://strategycase.com/mckinsey-personal-experience-interview-the-only-post-you-need-to-read

My coaching program, consisting of 5 sessions is specifically tailored for McKinsey interviews and covers the McKinsey-specific cases and PEI questions so that you can be sure to be at your best on the big interview day. You will get the most effective approach at cracking both types of interviews with the firm. Let me know if you have any questions.

https://www.preplounge.com/en/profile.php?id=337437#coaching-package

Cheers,

Florian

Hi there,

I would very much be prepared for both fit and casing. That said, please also check with HR what to expect...different positions/offices/timelines mean different proesses!

Hey there!

There shouldn’t be any unique differences, however, be prepared for some industry-specific questions.

For more insights, you probably would like to check this tred - https://www.preplounge.com/en/consulting-forum/mckinsey-junior-research-analyst-907

If you have any other questions - feel free to message me,

GB