frameworks MBB

Hello there,

Thank you for bringing this question to the forum. I will be brutally honest: The question is built on wrong premises and indicates a misleading focus in your preparation. Perhaps I can help to clarify.

What are the misconceptions?

1. A framework is just a logical approach to a case question and thus reflects logic, not any particular firm's philosophy.
2. Often, the same people having done the same interview preparation are sitting in the interviews of multiple MBB firms as well as T2/T3 firms. How could there be a difference in how they approach a question that is related to the firm they are currently interviewing at? There is none.
3. The qualities you mentioned (creativity, strategic thinking, breaking down complex problems, analytical depth, clarity of communication,…) are required in any framework at all firms. Interviewers at each firm use evaluation sheets to assess candidates and these sheets are all very similar. You can safely assume that these factors are (under one name or another) assessed at every company.
4. The only nuance that is worth mentioning (here you do have a point) is that you do have more time (and just one shot) to build and then communicate your framework in a McKinsey interview since it is interviewer-led and thus concists of a sequence of separate questions. Thus, while depending on the case question I would generally encourage you to take a bit more time here to build a broader and deeper framework compared to the other firms and make sure you carefully walk your interviewer through all facets including your hypotheses and initial thinking on the topic. To contrast this with the other extreme: In a BCG Germany interview you have 20 minutes to solve the entire case, so you naturally need to be reasonably quick with the framework while still clearly demonstrating structured thinking. However, note that the difference is not in the skills being demonstrated but in the time you have to do this.

How should you look at it?

Do not waste your mental resources on matters such as differences in frameworking between firms. You need to show the same skills and there is just one art of frameworking, not many.

You will need all your resources to learn how to reliably build logical, relevant, and practical frameworks for all kinds of case questions and become a competitive candidate in an (at least contemporarily) difficult recruiting environment.

A candidate who is able to do that is likely to succeed in any interview, whereas a candidate who is not able to do that will most likely not succeed.

I hope that could help reset your direction. All the best for your preparation!

Best,

Gero

This is a really cool question. 

The short answer is that the differences are not significant. 

Now, for the longer answer. Here are where some of the differences may appear:

• Firms that provide candidate-led cases (rather than interviewer-led) tend to prefer tighter, more focused frameworks that seek to issue a hypothesis with more urgency. Interviewer led frameworks tend to be broader and deeper (a la McKinsey). 
• BCG is perceived as more creative. Bain as more practical. McK is more thorough and rigorous. But honestly, I don't believe in these differences. There are bigger differences to account for between interviewers (and their interviewing style), offices and regions than between how the individual cultures of the firms translate into the structure. 

At the end of the day, the whole point of the structuring/framework question is to get a sense of how you think through a problem and break it into manageable parts. And how you communicate that, of course. That's it. 

So the differences between the firms are barely relevant. 

If you're looking into structuring, you might find the following article helpful:

• Expert Guide: Mastering Structuring & Brainstorming

Additionally, I run a workshop on first principles that you can read more about here: 

https://www.preplounge.com/en/shop/coaching-packages-5/first_principles_structuring_masterclass

Best,
Cristian

Hi there,

you're overcomplicating this.

Shoot, I just helped a Partner at MBB create a case for his interviews - he didn't know what to do to make it!

You're assuming that these firms are perfectly ochestrated and aligned like a single organism. They are not.

They are full of thousands of people with different thoughts and styles.

But they are all aligned on ONE critical point: Solve the problem, in an objective-driven, structured, MECE way.

I could easily find a McK consultant and a BCG consultant who framework x problem the exact same way.

Then I could find two other McK and BCG consultants who framework that same x problem a totally different way!

Don't overthink this….solve the problem. Be structured. Be MECE.

How to Shift Your Mindset to Ace the Case
 

Candidate-Led Cases: What to Expect With Example Cases

Hi there,

Fully agree with Gero. If you want to go deeper into McKinsey vs. other firm's point, check my article here: McKinsey Case Interview

Regarding your message:

"I've heard from a lot of people, that every company has a distinctive style when the framework of the problems in the interview."

These comments are the exact reason why I started as a case coach. When I was in your shoes I read many of these things as well and it was never really helpful. The reality is that “a lot of people” are all using the same outdated and faulty sources to base their opinion on and then wonder why only 1% of applicants receive an offer from the top firms.

When it comes to case prep, don't follow the herd but go against the 99% to elevate your chances (same as with many other things).

Cheers,

Florian
 

They are not that different, and they are not looking for “different styles of frameworking" in their interviews. 

Honestly, preparation for all firms is roughly similar ON THE CASE INTERVIEW part. Adjustments are more relevant for the FIT INTERVIEW. 

So the difference is rarely on the ability to solve problems. It is on the cultural / personal side.