Cookie and Privacy Settings

This website uses cookies to enable essential functions like the user login and sessions. We also use cookies and third-party tools to improve your surfing experience on preplounge.com. You can choose to activate only essential cookies or all cookies. You can always change your preference in the cookie and privacy settings. This link can also be found in the footer of the site. If you need more information, please visit our privacy policy.

Data processing in the USA: By clicking on "I accept", you also consent, in accordance with article 49 paragraph 1 sentence 1 lit. GDPR, to your data being processed in the USA (by Google LLC, Facebook Inc., LinkedIn Inc., Stripe, Paypal).

Manage settings individually I accept
expert
Expert with best answer

Francesco

100% Recommendation Rate

3,283 Meetings

12,077 Q&A Upvotes

USD 449 / Coaching

4

McK came back and asked for a 3rd first round interview before they can make a decision. Is this common and why does this happen?

4 answers

  • Upvotes
  • Date ascending
  • Date descending
Best Answer
Book a coaching with Francesco

100% Recommendation Rate

3,283 Meetings

12,077 Q&A Upvotes

USD 449 / Coaching

Hi Anonymous,

as Sidi mentioned, such situation happens at McKinsey when interviewers disagree with each other.

Ideally you already know which part of the case you didn’t do well enough. If that’s not the case, you should ask feedback on the potential improvements in your performance. Once you have identified them, you should then focus specifically on those areas in your further preparation for your next round.

Best,

Francesco

Hi Anonymous,

as Sidi mentioned, such situation happens at McKinsey when interviewers disagree with each other.

Ideally you already know which part of the case you didn’t do well enough. If that’s not the case, you should ask feedback on the potential improvements in your performance. Once you have identified them, you should then focus specifically on those areas in your further preparation for your next round.

Best,

Francesco

Book a coaching with Sidi

99% Recommendation Rate

423 Meetings

4,089 Q&A Upvotes

USD 449 / Coaching

Hi Anonymous!

This is not common, but it happens from time to time. The most likely scenario is that there has been substantial disagreement between your interviewers regarding one or several points, so they feel an additional interview is needed to make a robust and informed decision.

My advice would be to ask candidly for feedback and possible question mark areas that they see!

Good luck & cheers, Sidi

Hi Anonymous!

This is not common, but it happens from time to time. The most likely scenario is that there has been substantial disagreement between your interviewers regarding one or several points, so they feel an additional interview is needed to make a robust and informed decision.

My advice would be to ask candidly for feedback and possible question mark areas that they see!

Good luck & cheers, Sidi

Dear Anonymous A,

Sid is right on this.

More so, this disagreement likely stems from what might have been perceived as weak points, not areas where you performed well. In other words, they're likely not asking you to come back to demonstrate areas where they believe you're amazing; rather, to prove to them that in area in which you were variably perceived to be weak is not a fatal one that is likely to repeat.

So, what can you do? 3 things, I believe:

1. Conduct a brutal self-assessment from your first two interviews to try to deduce what this problem area might be: are your quantitative skills wobbly? Do you have trouble synthesising? Was your structure unsound? Are you unimaginative with brainstorming? Are your processes clear, logical, and replicable? Do you bring sound judgement to your decision-making? et. cetera

2. Develop an effective plan to overcome this problem area and work to weave it into any Case prep you do between now and then. Although, please don't go crazy on the Case prep: the fact that they've asked you to come back shows they have at least some confidence in your Case skills more generally.

3. Go back to your third interview with confidence and calm and with the reassurance that you have given your best in 1) and 2) above.

Good fortune!

Dear Anonymous A,

Sid is right on this.

More so, this disagreement likely stems from what might have been perceived as weak points, not areas where you performed well. In other words, they're likely not asking you to come back to demonstrate areas where they believe you're amazing; rather, to prove to them that in area in which you were variably perceived to be weak is not a fatal one that is likely to repeat.

So, what can you do? 3 things, I believe:

1. Conduct a brutal self-assessment from your first two interviews to try to deduce what this problem area might be: are your quantitative skills wobbly? Do you have trouble synthesising? Was your structure unsound? Are you unimaginative with brainstorming? Are your processes clear, logical, and replicable? Do you bring sound judgement to your decision-making? et. cetera

2. Develop an effective plan to overcome this problem area and work to weave it into any Case prep you do between now and then. Although, please don't go crazy on the Case prep: the fact that they've asked you to come back shows they have at least some confidence in your Case skills more generally.

3. Go back to your third interview with confidence and calm and with the reassurance that you have given your best in 1) and 2) above.

Good fortune!

I am in the same boat, I've been asked to give a third interview for my first round at McKinsey. But I was expecting this, as my first interview went amazingly well and my second interview was terrible, mostly because I felt the interviewer was very hostile and made inappropriate comments about all my answers. I'm planning on giving feedback to McK about this particular experience after I am done with my third interview. But I do realise that I let the interviewer throw me off with his comments, which led to me not being structured and confident and I completely messed up the final synthesis.

I am in the same boat, I've been asked to give a third interview for my first round at McKinsey. But I was expecting this, as my first interview went amazingly well and my second interview was terrible, mostly because I felt the interviewer was very hostile and made inappropriate comments about all my answers. I'm planning on giving feedback to McK about this particular experience after I am done with my third interview. But I do realise that I let the interviewer throw me off with his comments, which led to me not being structured and confident and I completely messed up the final synthesis.

Related case(s)

MBB Final Round Case - Smart Education

Solved 15.4k times
MBB Final Round Case - Smart Education Our client is SmartBridge, a nonprofit educational institution offering face-to-face tutoring services. The client operates in the US. The mission of SmartBridge is to help as many students as possible to complete studies and prevent that they drop from the school system, in particular in disadvantaged areas. The client is considering starting operations for its services in the Chicago area. They hired us to understand if that makes sense. Due to the nonprofit regulation, SmartBridge should operate on its own in the market, without any partnership. How would you help our client?
4.6 5 530
| Rating: (4.6 / 5.0)

Our client is SmartBridge, a nonprofit educational institution offering face-to-face tutoring services. The client operates in the US. The mission of SmartBridge is to help as many students as possible to complete studies and prevent that they drop from the school system, in particular in disadvant ... Open whole case