A former Navy pilot with an MBA from a top school failed his Bain final round last month. His frameworks were flawless. His math was sharp. His structure looked like a textbook diagram. He failed because he never asked about definitions.
The case involved improving “productivity” at a manufacturing client. He spent 25 minutes analyzing output per worker, and automation opportunities. The client measured productivity as profit per square foot of factory space. He’d solved the wrong problem entirely.
This happens constantly. Candidates assume they understand terms that have no universal meaning. Then they wonder why their perfect analysis fell flat.
Words like “profitability,” “growth,” “quality,” and “efficiency” feel specific. They’re not. Each company measures them differently, and that difference changes everything.
Take profitability. For most businesses it is (profit/revenue). For investment firms, it’s the return on invested capital. For real estate, it’s cap rate.
A candidate recently faced this prompt: “Our client wants to improve profitability in their European operations.”
She immediately started calculating margin improvement opportunities. Ten minutes later, she learned the client measured profitability as profit per employee, they were a consulting firm. Her entire analysis was worthless.
The partner interviewing her said something I’ll never forget: “In consulting, the first minute determines whether the next 29 minutes matter.”
Physicists and historians often outperform MBAs? Here’s why. A physics PHD doesn’t pretend to know business terms. They ask.
“When you say market share, do you mean revenue share or unit share?” “How specifically does your client calculate customer satisfaction?”
“What counts as ‘high quality’ in this industry?”
Meanwhile, the MBA assumes market share means revenue share because that’s what they learned in marketing class. They’re wrong 40% of the time.
One philosophy major I mentored and coached got into McKinsey by treating every business term like a foreign word requiring translation. Her interviewer later said, “She asked more clarifying questions in three minutes than most candidates ask all day. But she was able to grasp the problem precisely and craft a logic to solve the precise problem. That’s exactly what our clients need.”
Every ambiguous objective has multiple valid measurements. Miss this, and you’re solving for the wrong target
“Increase diversity”
“Improve customer experience”
“Drive innovation”
A semiconductor company case about “innovation” would have stumped dozens of candidates. But not our mentee, he asked the crucial clarifying question: “How does the client measure innovation success?”
Answer: Time from concept to market. Not patents. Not R&D spending. Speed. That single clarification changed everything about the solution and allowed him to navigate the case effectively and move to the next round.
Before creating any structure, get answers to these:
Watch this trainwreck unfold:
Interviewer: “Our client wants to improve quality at their restaurant chain.”
Candidate: Launches into food freshness, supplier standards, kitchen processes, chef training…
Reality: The client was a quick service restaurant (QSR) chain and measured quality as speed of service. Everything under 5 minutes was “quality.” Everything over was not.
Twenty minutes of sophisticated analysis about farm-to-table suppliers. Zero relevance to the actual problem.
The fix takes eight seconds: “How does your client currently measure quality?”
You can’t solve problems for businesses you don’t understand. Yet candidates constantly skip the fundamental question: How does this company make money?
A tutoring company case stumped a candidate who assumed they charged hourly rates. They actually sold annual subscriptions. His entire pricing analysis assumed the wrong model.
A healthcare case confused another candidate who thought hospitals maximized patient health. They maximize bed turnover. Different objective, different solution.
Even non-profits have “business models” they just measure different outcomes. For a church growth might mean weekly attendance, total members, or donation levels. Each metric drives completely different strategies.
Here’s what’s counterintuitive: Asking for definitions isn’t about unwarranted precision. It’s about being practical.
When a retailer says they want to “expand,” do they mean:
Each option requires a different analysis. Guessing wrong wastes everyone’s time.
A candidate thought “expand” meant opening new locations. The client meant expanding existing stores’ square footage. She analyzed real estate markets across the country. The client needed construction cost analysis for their current locations.
Here’s the secret. Interviewers plant ambiguous terms deliberately. They’re testing whether you’ll clarify or assume. Strong candidates pause, set definitions, and narrow scope. This reflects what happens in real strategy consulting work when we engage with clients. Clients are not able to define the problem precisely, consultants have to probe and uncover the actual problem client wants us to solve and align on it.
When I interviewed at Bain, we had a scorecard item called “Framing the problem.” Candidates who scored high asked about definitions, metrics, and scope. Those who scored low dove straight into analysis.
Guess which group got offers?
Tomorrow, read any business article. List every metric mentioned. Then write three ways each could be measured.
“Revenue growth” – Absolute dollars? Percentage? Year-over-year? Quarter-over-quarter? Organic only? Including acquisitions?
“Market leader” – Revenue? Units sold? Locations? Brand recognition? Stock price?
“Operational efficiency” – Cost per unit? Time to market? Inventory turns? Employee utilization?
You’ll quickly realize most business writing is uselessly vague. Your case interviews shouldn’t be.
Some candidates think asking questions makes them look weak. Like they should already know everything.
That’s backwards. Senior partners ask more questions than analysts. Experience teaches you that assumptions kill projects.
I watched a Bain partner spend 15 minutes clarifying what “digital transformation” meant to a client. The consultants and analysts were impatient. The partner knew better. Those 15 minutes saved six weeks of misdirected work.
Structure your case opening like this:
Minute 1: Clarify the question, objective, and success metrics “So we’re deciding whether to enter Brazil, success means 20% ROI within 5 years, and you measure ROI as…”
Minute 2: Understand the business context “Before structuring, help me understand: what’s your current revenue model, and which customer segments drive profitability?”
Only then create your framework. Because now you’re solving the right problem.
Every failed case interview I’ve reviewed had warning signs in the first three minutes. The candidate assumed instead of asking. They applied generic frameworks to specific situations. They solved textbook problems instead of the client’s actual problem.
Meanwhile, successful candidates sound almost boringly methodical at the start. Define terms. Clarify metrics. Understand context. Then unleash analysis.
Your clever framework means nothing if you’re answering the wrong question. Your brilliant insights are worthless if they use the wrong success metric.
Stop trying to impress with speed. Start impressing with precision about what actually matters.
Ask the obvious questions. Define the fuzzy terms. Clarify the success metrics.
That’s not a weakness. That’s what partners do before committing $2 million of client money to a recommendation.
That’s what gets you the offer.
As a former Bain recruiter, I’ve helped countless MBA students navigate this path successfully. Book a free intro call with me today, and let’s craft a strategy to make your MBA recruiting journey a winning one.
Good luck – and enjoy the ride!
As a coach with consulting experience, I can provide you with more tips and one-on-one practice to sharpen your estimation techniques. Book a intro session with my team to know more.
