Failed 1st round at McKinsey Implementations due to PEI

I think other coaches already provided good answers to the key questions, so let me address a side issue you raised here, because it shows the kind of wrong mindset that can be fatal: 

“I should know where to look for “real” costs not just provide academic split. I told him that I know about that, it is however how cases best practices are taught (meaning profitability formula), so I used that split in my structure instead to discussing on accounting statements or management accounting rapports in a case interview.”

1. There are many wrong things going on here. The first one is that you think that case interviews are different from real life. They are not. Whatever is a good practice in “real cases” is a good practice in “case interviews” and vice-versa.

2. Second, you did not understand what the interviewer was saying, and as such actually confirmed you don't know where to look for real costs. He was not refering to the documents where you would find the information (accounting statements, management accounting), but on how to break down the costs in a way that is relevant to the specific problem and industry / client.

3. Breaking down costs between fixed and variable is not a best practice. It is not even a good practice. 

It's generic, usually meaningless, and not always practical. You would never ask a client for their fix vs. variable costs. By using this terminology, you show zero understanding of the specific industry, and most importantly, on how you should actually break down the costs in the specific case or industry. 

If this was a restaurant, I would probably have food costs, staffing and real estate costs (rent, insurance, utilities, maintenance, …). If it was a paper mill, it would be paper pulp (raw materials), energy, maintenance and staffing. But if it was a case on consumer goods (and depending on the problem) I could look into value chain margins (retailer, distributor, manufaturing, raw materials). And in another case between R&D, production and marketing/distribution. 

I hope this answer helped to bring some light into how one should approach costs.

Hi there,

First of all, I am sorry to hear about your not successful experience with McKinsey!

This is indeed an interesting question which is probably relevant for quite a lot of users, so I am happy to provide my perspective on it:

• From my own experience, the ones of my coachees and my personal network, yes, having a weak PEI situation seems to suffice to reject you. Obviously, one could argue that it might be arbitrary to reject an otherwise very capable candidate solely because of his storytelling skills, but one needs to accept the process. With regards to the cost cutting reason, I have the feeling that it was more about the superficial brainstorming afterwards.
• Depending on what your short-, mid- and long-term goals are and whether you would still be interested in McKinsey after the rejection, it might be very meaningful to reapply. Please feel free to contact me directly in case you want a more detailed discussion on where you want to go professionally and what might be the best options for your specific situation.
• Being a strategy consultant requires a completely different skillset (i.e. it is mainly about your cognitive abilities) to the one of an implementation consultant (i.e. it is mainly about the experience in a specific industry and function). As such, the age of employees might different significantly.

In case you want a more detailed discussion on how to best prepare the next steps towards your upcoming career entry into consulting, please feel free to contact me directly.

I hope this helps,

Hagen

Hi there,

1) Do you think that the 2 reasons above could be reasonable enough to reject a candidate? Can it be that experienced hires who interview candidates later on are a bit biased due to their pre-Mckinsey experience? 

The first one (lack of great PEI story) could definitely be a sufficient reason on his own - although there are probably other nuances why he felt the story was not great. 

In terms of the second one (cost structuring), from what you shared I don’t think the main issue was that you divided costs into fixed and variable, but the limitations of the brainstorming following that.

In terms of bias, I would not expect an interviewer at McKinsey to be biased due to the age of a candidate. On the other hand, creating a good connection with the interviewer is always important.

2) Does it make sense to re-apply in 1-2 years?

Sure why not? Unless you are just interested in McKinsey implementation, I would also apply to other consulting firms in the meantime though.

3) Also why McKinsey is favouring candidates with so many years of experienced for Implementation roles while the average EM who joined the firm as an undergraduate is I assume 30 years old?

I don’t think there is a cut based on seniority only for the position, otherwise they would have not taken the time to interview you. However, given two candidates with the same characteristics and one with additional experience it could well be they would favor the latter.

In terms of the difference with the generalist position, it could be that for the offices you looked at McKinsey didn't have many people that they could have promoted internally, while for generalist EM they had, thus the difference in age.

Hope this helps,

Francesco

Hello,

Sharing my thoughts below as someone who has interviewed 100+ candidates for McK in Asia, and who has led several McK Implementation projects across Asia.

1) do you think that the 2 reasons above could be reasonable enough to reject a candidate? Can it be that experienced hires who interview candidates later on are a bit biased due to their pre-Mckinsey experience? 

Yes the 2 reasons given are common for Implementation candidates who did not meet the bar. Implementation candidates are expected to apply a more robust practical lens to problem solving so  splitting costs into just fixed and variable isn’t going to impress any clients in an implementation project. And No, McK interviewers are trained to avoid unconscious bias on any dimension, including age. And any yes/no decisions are made jointly by both interviewers, and in the presence of a neutral party e.g., PD manager. 

2) does it make sense to re-apply in 1-2 years?

Yes, repeat applications always welcome but you will need to work on bringing the best of your industry experience with the classic consulting toolkit of top down comms, structured problem solving and great client/team hands. 

3) Also why McKinsey is favouring candidates with so many years of experienced for Implementation roles while the average EM who joined the firm as an undergraduate is I assume 30 years old?

This is an incorrect statement. McK values diversity in its search for the best talent so there is no age discrimination. Having said that, candidates that apply for Implementation roles do have more practical real world industry experience than others on the generalist consulting track, which in the past tend to be either MBA, pHD or UG graduates from target schools.

Hi there,

1) do you think that the 2 reasons above could be reasonable enough to reject a candidate? Can it be that experienced hires who interview candidates later on are a bit biased due to their pre-Mckinsey experience? 

Yes. You didn't perform well. And, I can tell from the way you have written this Q&A that you have yet to master structured, objective-driven, clear, and concise communication. This is a must.

2) does it make sense to re-apply in 1-2 years?

Yes, but I think you need to work significantly on communication, structured thinking, and business acumen.

3) Also why McKinsey is favouring candidates with so many years of experienced for Implementation roles while the average EM who joined the firm as an undergraduate is I assume 30 years old?

I don't really understand this question. Mckinsey is favoring the best candidates, which is a combination of experience and ability.

.