How to answer the interviewer's question more "directly"?

Hi there,

1) What is a better way to answer this question?

For an intermediary conclusion, I would recommend stating your recommendation mentioning it is provided with the information you have so far, and then explaining the additional steps needed. 

Example: “With the information we have so far on ABC, it [seems/doesn’t seem] like a good idea to do XYZ. However, for a definitive answer, we should also consider D, E, and F as we saw before, as these parts would also be critical for the client. Thus, as next steps…”

2) How do I judge whether I should go “broad” vs. go “direct”? By being broad and giving a big picture, I may sound diverged. But if I directly give an answer without enough information and support, I may be arbitrary.

If you add “with the information we have so far” on top, you can always have a “direct” answer, as you are making clear your current recommendation is just based on the analysis conducted till that moment, and it might be different once explored more points.

3) In this scenario, would you suggest clarifying with the interviewer, such as “Would you like me to give you a direct answer, or go a bit broader to consider additional areas to look into?” Personally, I feel this is a bit weird/natural. 

No need, as you can use the approach above, making it clear that you are basing your conclusion on what you have found so far.

You can find more on how to provide a conclusion below:

▶ How to Structure a Conclusion

Best,

Francesco

In cases where you are asked a direct question, it is indeed important to provide a clear and concise answer before delving into additional details or considerations. This allows the interviewer to understand your initial viewpoint and thought process.

To improve in this area, I would suggest the following approach:

Start with a clear answer: Begin your response by directly addressing the question. In this case, you could say something like, "Based on the financial analysis, I believe the client should outsource manufacturing to the emerging country."

Provide a brief rationale: After giving your direct answer, briefly explain the main reasons or key factors that support your viewpoint. For example, you could mention the cost savings, potential for increased profitability, or access to new markets.

Transition to additional considerations: Once you have given your initial answer and rationale, you can then mention that there are other factors to consider. This shows that you are aware of the broader context and are willing to explore other aspects of the decision. You can say something like, "However, it is important to also evaluate the operational feasibility and potential risks associated with outsourcing to the emerging country."

Regarding your second question about when to go "broad" versus "direct," it's important to strike a balance. While it's crucial to provide a clear answer, it's also important to demonstrate your ability to think critically and consider multiple factors. As a general guideline, if the question is specifically asking for a direct answer, it's best to provide one before expanding on additional considerations.

In this scenario, I would not recommend clarifying with the interviewer about whether to go "direct" or "broad." It may disrupt the flow of the conversation and come across as unnatural. Instead, aim to incorporate both elements in your response by starting with a direct answer and then transitioning to additional areas to consider.

Remember, practice is key to improving your ability to answer questions directly. Conduct mock interviews, seek feedback, and refine your approach. With time and practice, you will become more comfortable and confident in providing clear and concise responses.

I hope this guidance helps you in your case interviews. Best of luck, and feel free to reach out if you have any further questions!

Hi!

The issue lies already in your structuring! This “problem” only can emerge if you don't have an adequate structure which addresses the question. If the client has asked “Should we outsource or not?”, then the core of your structure would have to be a clear criterion according to which the answer would be either “yes” or “no”.

If the client objective is based on profit (maybe operationalized by a reuired ROI percentage), then you know already from the start which threshold level is required for a yes! So if your result exceeded this percentage given by the criterion, you would say something like:

"So from a purely financial perspective, we can already say that it makes snese for our client. Now, in order to make this recommendation more robust, let me cycle back to the secondary conditions I outlined at the beginning of the case: (1) Can they actually execute it capabilities and funding wise?, and (2) Are they able and willing to shoulder the potential risks that might come along with an outsourcing decision?

We can now either try to pragmatically develop a perspective on these two questions, or we could also already share our findings up to this point with the client, with a hint that  capabilities and risk analysis is still outstanding."

As you see, it is crucial that your INITIAL structure is already comprising the primary criterion (linked to profit), and the secondary criteria (linked to capabilities and risk). This is how you address any kind of go/no go scenario in a logical way, and this is what allows you to be super sharp and “direct” in your answers and statements throughout the case.

Cheers, Sidi

_______________________

Dr. Sidi Koné 

(🚀 Ex BCG & McKinsey Sr. Project Manager, now helping high potential individuals join the world's top Strategy Consulting firms (McKinsey | BCG | Bain))

Hello,

I agree with Sidi here. The issue you're facing seems to be related to the structuring of your approach. When you encounter a question like, "Should we outsource manufacturing to this emerging country?", it's essential to have a structured approach that addresses the question directly.

Here's how you could improve your response:

Clear Framework: Start your case with a clear framework that includes a primary criterion that directly answers the question. In your case, profitability might be the primary criterion. For example, "We should consider outsourcing to the emerging country if it leads to a significant increase in profitability."

Direct Answer: Begin your response by directly answering the question based on the primary criterion. In this case, you could say, "Yes, we recommend outsourcing to the emerging country because it will substantially increase profitability."

Supporting Arguments: After your direct answer, provide supporting arguments and context. You can mention other factors such as operational feasibility and risks that you will explore to make the recommendation more robust. For instance, "While the financial analysis suggests outsourcing, we should also assess the client's capabilities to execute the plan effectively and their willingness to manage potential risks."

By structuring your approach with a clear primary criterion and providing a direct answer upfront, you'll convey your recommendation clearly and concisely. Remember that case interviews aim to assess your ability to think logically, communicate effectively, and provide actionable insights.

Warm regards, Frederic

Hi,

It's not entirely clear from your context if the feedback was given in response to the articulation of your framework, or recommendation. 

‘Broad' vs ‘direct’ I think is a bit of a misunderstanding of what is actually expected of you in the interview (again, hard to understand without seeing the actual recording of your performance). The principles of problem solving and traits that firms are looking are always constant

• You need to answer the question that is posed to you
• You need to be MECE
• You need to be logical
• You need to be 80/20

So if this was the end of the case and the interviewer asked “so what do you think our client should do?” - then a response like “our client should outsource to the emerging country because of [insight 1] [insight 2] etc”. 

Lastly, I would sometimes take with a pinch of salt the feedback you get from case partners especially if they are peers and have never sat in the interviewer's seat.

All the best!

Well, it's hard to explain this but….just spit it out!

You need to do exactly what he said.

state your insight/takeaway upfront.

THEN, support it with reasons.

Always keep the objective front and center. If you are not always moving towards the objective and demonstrating how you are answering it, you're wasting time!

Feel free to message me for a few case interview mocks/walkthroughs so that you can see how I communicate and what direct actually looks like!

Hi there!

This is a great question :)

And it's something that funnily enough starting consultants also struggle with. 

In McKinsey it's called being top-down. 

Bain calls it ‘answer first’. 

But in short, you need to provide the answer straight away and then to give the supporting evidence, clarify the thinking process or caveat your answer. 

So whoever gave you that feedback is totally right. 

If you want to learn more about this communication methodology, check out Barbara Minto's ‘The Pyramid Principle’ or look for synthesis articles online. 

Feel free to also reach out over DMs if you have further questions.

Best,
Cristian

———————————————

Practicing for interviews? Check out my latest case based on a first-round MBB interview >>> SoyTechnologies  

Hi there,

I have seen a lot of people who joined McKinsey struggling with this at the beginning. It is quite normal when not coming from consulting before.

I used to explain that you can communicate in two ways:

• Deductive: first you guide through the reasoning logic and then sum up the conclussion
• Inductive: you start with the conclusion (e.g., yes, no, 75, etc.) and then explain the rationale behind

In consulting (and usually across client C-level positions), inductive style is preferred.

Happy to help you sharpen your communication style for your interviews. Just send me a DM.

Best,

Alberto