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).
Consentino's Case In Point states that an interviewer may call your bluff or outrightly say your approach to reaching an assumption or mini conclusion is wrong in order to see how you'll react. So in the case, you either stand your ground or analyse both sides and acqueise depending on the stronger argument. However, when do I decide if, when an interviewer does this, he's actually trying to help me or he's trying to test me?
Consentino's Case In Point states that an interviewer may call your bluff or outrightly say your approach to reaching an assumption or mini conclusion is wrong in order to see how you'll react. So in the case, you either stand your ground or analyse both sides and acqueise depending on the stronger argument. However, when do I decide if, when an interviewer does this, he's actually trying to help me or he's trying to test me?
3 answers
Upvotes
Date ascending
Date descending
Best Answer
Anonymous updated his answer on Mar 15, 2018
First let me state that for MBB interviews, this kind of behavior is VERY uncommon! I can say that during my time as interviewer for both McKinsey and BCG, we were actively trained to NOT mislead candidates during cases!
So if you are challenged on an approach, chances are that there are indeed points you should consider. In this case I would clarify with the interviewer where the problem lies (i.e., start recapitulating your basic ingoing assumptions and deductively confirming the logical conclusions regarding relevant elements). Going through your approach elements one by one will then force the interviewer to either explicitly discuss "wrong" elements of your approach or to pinpoint missing elements. It is essentially a structured testing for MECEness. The result of this process will be either a refined approach, or the interviewer needs to admit a bluff (as I said, unlikely at MBB).
Cheers, Sidi
First let me state that for MBB interviews, this kind of behavior is VERY uncommon! I can say that during my time as interviewer for both McKinsey and BCG, we were actively trained to NOT mislead candidates during cases!
So if you are challenged on an approach, chances are that there are indeed points you should consider. In this case I would clarify with the interviewer where the problem lies (i.e., start recapitulating your basic ingoing assumptions and deductively confirming the logical conclusions regarding relevant elements). Going through your approach elements one by one will then force the interviewer to either explicitly discuss "wrong" elements of your approach or to pinpoint missing elements. It is essentially a structured testing for MECEness. The result of this process will be either a refined approach, or the interviewer needs to admit a bluff (as I said, unlikely at MBB).
I agree the process mentioned is uncommon. What could happen though is that you get a question like “Are you sure” after a math computation, in particular if you made mistakes before.
As Sidi said, the best thing would be to:
Recap what you have found till that moment
Restate the elements on which the challenged conclusion is based on
Most of the time, this will let you realise there was an actual mistake from your side somewhere, and thus that the interviewer wanted to help you identify it.
Best,
Francesco
Hi Anonymous,
I agree the process mentioned is uncommon. What could happen though is that you get a question like “Are you sure” after a math computation, in particular if you made mistakes before.
As Sidi said, the best thing would be to:
Recap what you have found till that moment
Restate the elements on which the challenged conclusion is based on
Most of the time, this will let you realise there was an actual mistake from your side somewhere, and thus that the interviewer wanted to help you identify it.
To be honest I've never seen anything like that. I recommend assuming by default that the interviewer is trying to help you:
Since the time of the case is limited (25-35 min), the interviewer will be giving you the tips to help you reach the conclusion faster. It's important to listen to these tips. If you hear this tip - it's important to dig deeper into this issue immediately, saying something like: "That sounds interesting. I would like to investigate this information further and if there is nothing there I will get back to my initial structure"
Interviewers may be challenging you asking to provide more evidence (arguments) or asking how you would check the particular assumption on a real project. But I've never seen any interviewer saying that you are wrong if you were right.
Best
Hi,
To be honest I've never seen anything like that. I recommend assuming by default that the interviewer is trying to help you:
Since the time of the case is limited (25-35 min), the interviewer will be giving you the tips to help you reach the conclusion faster. It's important to listen to these tips. If you hear this tip - it's important to dig deeper into this issue immediately, saying something like: "That sounds interesting. I would like to investigate this information further and if there is nothing there I will get back to my initial structure"
Interviewers may be challenging you asking to provide more evidence (arguments) or asking how you would check the particular assumption on a real project. But I've never seen any interviewer saying that you are wrong if you were right.
MBB Final Round Case - Smart EducationOur 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?
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
Bain 1st Round Case – BlissOtticaOur client is a BlissOttica, an Eyewear Manufacturer that is looking to reach a 10% increase in profits. How would you help our client?
Our client is a BlissOttica, an Eyewear Manufacturer that is looking to reach a 10% increase in profits. How would you help our client?
Open whole case
