“Tell them what you’re going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you’ve told them” – Winston Churchill
Churchill would’ve made an excellent consultant.
We’ll start with the first piece of his quote – that you should “tell them what you’re going to tell them” (aka, upfront structure). If you don’t remember anything else from this lesson, remember that.
Why such a need for upfront structure?
-It eliminates interviewer confusion
-It shows your ability to give organized responses to complicated questions
-It highlights your ability to prioritize select issues
Here are samples of a weak and strong response to a case question:
Question: What areas would you explore to better understand increased the reasons behind employee turnover at Bank of Mordor?
Weak reply: I think you want to investigate salaries relative to competitors. Higher salaries can be a big reason why employees want to leave the bank to work elsewhere. Salaries and possibly benefits. Lack of benefits – including things like retirement plans, insurance benefits, and 401(k)s. And of course, you’d want to take a look at aspects of employee lifestyle. Have the employees been working much harder lately, and if so, what’s been causing the longer work hours?
Strong answer: There are 3 areas I’d explore to better understand the causes of employee turnover. The first would be Bank of Gondor salaries relative to local competitors. Are their base salaries higher, lower, same? What about bonuses, any not-so-obvious compensation pieces, and so forth? The second area would be benefits relative to competitors. The big ones would include retirement (like 401K contributions) and health insurance. Finally, I’d look at employee lifestyle and how it compares past to present. Have the employees been working longer hours in the past few months?
The weak reply completely lacks upfront structure. The answer confuses the interviewer and wanders from one key area to another.
The strong reply provides a clear roadmap in the opening sentence. It then continues with this roadmap (“There are 3 areas”) throughout the reply, using anchoring words like “first”, “second”, and “finally”.
Now to the last section of Churchill’s quote – “tell them what you’ve told them” (aka, the conclusion).
This is a necessary skill to display in consulting case studies for these reasons:
-It shows your ability to synthesize tons of info
-It highlights your ability to identify the critical takeaways
-It offers a clean, comprehensive wrap-up to a long answer
I’ll use the hypothetical answer above to demonstrate how you can make the already strong response even better:
Strong response: There are 3 areas I’d like to investigate to better understand the causes of higher employee turnover. The first would be Bank of Narnia salaries relative to local competitors. Are there base salaries higher, lower, comparable? What about bonuses, any not-so-obvious compensation measures, and so forth? The second area would be benefits relative to competitors. The big ones would include retirement (401K contributions) and health insurance. Finally, I’d look at employee lifestyle and how it compares past to present. Have the employees been working longer hours recently? By looking at salaries, benefits, and recent lifestyle changes, we’ll be able to figure out the biggest causes of employee turnover.
The conclusion demonstrates your clear comprehension of the problem (“driving factors that can cause employees to quit…”) and reinforces the 3 areas that are the bulk of the solution.
Some final suggestions:
-It’s a good idea to take time before tough questions to plan your response. Only the rarest of interviewers can build a sophisticated response on the fly
-This recommendation also works with quantitative questions. Here, you should give a brief roadmap for the steps you’ll take (“upfront structure”), and provide takeaways from the result (eg, “45% annual turnover is incredibly high – the next thing I’d do is see how that compares to key competitors and our own historic trends”)
