Interviewer Case

Will Dinneen Case #4. McKinsey. 2020. Europ

Candidate Date
Arthur Wang 10/2/2021
Problem-solving
Structuring Rating Comments
Buckets This is where you showed the most strength. However, the same
4 structuring must be present even through the creative questions that
ask for third level thinking.
1 = Did not offer a clear structure; 3 = Identified the right question; broke it down into an exhaustive set of independent drivers (e.g., MECE); 5 = Provided an approach to solving the case; shared
helpful insights
Numeracy Rating Comments
Solved numbering Utilized the full range of data available and asked the right questions
problems, was able to fill in 5 and made the right inferences. Only missed or didn't hear one
the gaps caused by particular step (12% commission on sales) that was key to solving the
1interviewers
= Made mistakes andflaws in case
needed help; problem.
3 = Calculated correctly and confidently; stated implications; 5 = Laid out a clear and optimal approach; calculated particularly quickly
running
Judgement and insights Rating Comments
Broke down insights into This ranking would be higher but there was a drop-off in judgment
three distinct areas on 3 organization in the last 1/3 of the case.
most questions
1 = Missed basic insights; 3 = Connected findings to develop practical recommendations; made reasonable hypotheses; 5 = Shared impressive insights; flagged far-reaching implications

Creativity Rating Comments

brought forward insights in The creativity was hampered by the last two questions and a failure to
groupings 2 articulate and answer to the question on customer insights through the
development of an application solution. A few additional questions
would
1 = Struggled to generate new ideas; 3 = Shared numerous and varied strong ideas; 5have brought
= Displayed exceptionalforth several
creativity deep
in a structured way insights.

Synthesis Rating Comments

Drew on numeracy to relay The best insights were on the revenue and cost challenges faced by
observations. 4 the company. The synthesis faded as time drew on. Keep in mind the
earlier weights on growth that you artfully evaluated.
1 = Did not make a clear and sound recommendation; 3 = Supported recommendation with key points, followed by specific next steps; 5 = Was particularly convincing

Case leadership Rating Comments

Led through pause and This is where I was difficult, but don't hesitate to ask for clarification
structure 2 and to listen to the prompts on later questions. Make sure to answer
the question as proffered.
1 = Was lost at times; 3 = Progressed without help; stayed focused on the question and the client's goal; 5 = Developed an answer early on; progressed quickly and confidently

General impression
Presence Rating Comments
strong impression of You didn't display panic or any trepidation. Calm and composed. Well
competenct 5 done.

1 = Was not client-ready; 3 = Was professional, engaging, energetic and confident; 5 = Built genuine rapport; showed positive personality; displayed expert-like credibility

Communication Rating Comments

Took time. Asked Don't hesitate to ask for clarification as you dive deeper into the case
questions. Was measured 4 study. There were opportunities to take a step back and clarify.
in tone and cadence.
1 = Was unclear and scattered; 3 = Listened well; spoke accurately, specifically and concisely; 5 = Was particularly organised; shared conclusion or approach before detail; communicated visually

Summary
Great job! Excellent structuring and numeracy. The synthesis and creativity suffered as we went through but
through seeking clarification (which would have helped me, as interviewer understand where we were stuck)
would have helped you manage time and the case flow. Pay attention to the final pages of the case prep book.

Rating: 1 = Below the bar needed to receive an offer; 3 = Meets the bar; 5 = Stands out on this dimension (top 10%)