PartnerRoundInterviewer-led vs candidate-led cases
McKinsey drives; BCG and Bain hand you the wheel. The same answer scores differently in each.
Firms run two different case formats, and the behaviour that scores well in one actively hurts in the other. Identify which you are in within the first sixty seconds.
| Interviewer-led (McKinsey) | Candidate-led (BCG, Bain) | |
|---|---|---|
| Who chooses the next step | The interviewer, via discrete questions | You, by proposing where to go |
| Your framework is used for | Showing your thinking once, then set aside | Navigating the whole case |
| Biggest risk | Trying to run the case and ignoring their question | Waiting to be told what to do |
| Signature move | Answer exactly what was asked, then stop | 'I'd like to start with X, because…' |
In a McKinsey case, if you are asked 'what would drive the cost difference?' and you reply with a four-branch framework covering revenue too, you have not scored on structure. You have shown you do not listen. Narrow, exhaustive answers to the actual question win.
In a candidate-led case the opposite failure appears: you present a beautiful framework, then look up expectantly. The interviewer is waiting for you to pick a branch and justify the pick. Always close your structure with a direction: 'I'd like to start with the cost side, because the revenue decline is only 3% while margin fell 11 points, which points at cost.'