McKinsey & Company Hi - appreciate advice here please. For McKinsey interviews, do interviewers expect hypothesis (like Bain's answer-first style)?
Specifically:
(1) At the start, state directional hypothesis (e.g. revenue decline likely driven by x) or keep it neutral (e.g. revenue could be driven by X or Y)?
(2) Does expectation change depending on prompt - e.g. no hypothesis for a brief prompt (e.g. revenue declined) vs hypothesis for prompt that hints (e.g. competitors fine, client revenue declined)?
McKinsey & Company
Im curious, what prompts would allow you to confidently offer a directional hypothesis from the start (revenue decline 'likely' driven by xyz) without sounding like a guess not backed yet by the relevant data to say that? And in cases where the prompt details would allow you to say that, would it not be such an obvious initial hypothesis that theres limited value in stating it as the only hypothesis? My personal approach is always framing my key questions across my framework as underlying hypothesis. E.g, gas station convenience store revenue has declined - are less people that are filling their tanks also walking into the store to buy when they fill?; are less passerbys walking into the shop? Are customers buying less when they walk in? Rather than stating the mathematical tree during my framework. With this approach, you dont tend to start a case without some hypothesis (even when initial prompt is limited). After that, which area i tell the interviewer id like to explore first is indirectly nudging them towards my priority hypothesis.
I think it might be a cool way to bring in wider business context. Eg with your gas station example, given oil prices are falling, my initial hypothesis is profitability might be linked to a drop in revenues. However, as oil is market driven, we may need to explore some cost reduction / alternative revenue drivers (pick one)
And If a hypothesis is expected, when is it best to state it — immediately after clarifying questions, at the start of walking through / during / after the structure?
McK cases have very clear questions you need to answer and if it’s unclear you can ask for clarifications. The “starting question” usually is smth on the line of “whah factors would you consider…”. When you answer try to have a structured framework that’s as comprehensive as possible. Start with providing the buckets and sub bullets without going in a lot of detail. Then, say, if you have an hypothesis you can say “but my hypothesis is…” and give more details ok that specific sub bullet. TLDR: Providing a MECE answer at the start is more important
than being hypothesis driven
I commented elsewhere that it’s a nice way to show off wider business knowledge, but I got some advice as well that it shows you’re actively thinking about the problem rather than responding. There’s obviously a fine line, but like any project, you often have an initial hypothesis, and even if it’s wrong, it’s not an issue
Being MECE trumps this though as m1 said