So What Club
Start free

Personal experience interview

Personal experience interview on persuasion, strong and weak

One story about persuading someone who disagreed, told twice under five follow-up questions: once with the actions, the other person's words and the numbers, and once in general terms that collapse under the second question.

A written example. Not a recording of a real candidate.

Before you read

The story: a student volunteer who ran operations for a university food bank persuaded the group's president not to close its Saturday opening. Both runs tell the same true story; only the telling differs.

The format: a personal experience interview, in which the interviewer asks for one real story and then probes it with many follow-up questions, as McKinsey describes its own interviews publicly. This example is our own writing and does not reproduce any firm's interview or questions.

  1. 1. The story

    What the interviewer is looking for: One real story in about a minute: the situation in a line or two, what was hard, what the candidate did, and a result with a number.

    Strong run

    1. Interviewer: Tell me about a time you persuaded someone who did not agree with you.

    2. Candidate: In my second year I was the operations lead of a student food bank that served about 200 families a week. The president wanted to close our Saturday opening, because only 5 volunteers had signed up for a shift that needs 12. I thought closing would hurt the families who could not come on weekdays, so I asked for one week before the committee voted. I surveyed the Saturday families at the door, found another student society willing to share the shift, and took both to the president before the meeting. The committee voted 6 to 1 to keep Saturday open for a trial term, and we served 68 families a week on Saturdays that term.

      Structure 5 of 5: Situation, task, action and result in about a minute, with the result in numbers.

    Weak run

    1. Interviewer: Tell me about a time you persuaded someone who did not agree with you.

    2. Candidate: Sure. So at university I was part of a food bank society, and there was a big debate about whether we should keep opening on Saturdays. There were a lot of different opinions, and we had a lot of discussions about it. In the end we managed to convince everyone to keep Saturday open, and it went really well.

      Structure 2 of 5: A setting and a happy ending, with no task, no action and no number. The interviewer cannot yet see what the candidate did.

  2. 2. Follow-up: what exactly did you do?

    What the interviewer is looking for: Actions the candidate took personally, in order, with enough detail to picture them. This is where stories that are not really yours break down.

    Strong run

    1. Interviewer: What exactly did you do in that week?

    2. Candidate: I did three things. On the Saturday I stood at the door with a short form and asked every family two questions: could they come on a weekday, and if not, why. I got answers from 52 of the 70 families who came. On Monday I emailed the heads of four other societies and asked if they would take one Saturday a month; the volunteering society said yes and offered 9 people. On Wednesday I met the president for half an hour with a one-page summary, before the full committee met.

      Ownership 5 of 5: Every step is an "I" statement with a day and a detail.

    Weak run

    1. Interviewer: What exactly did you do?

    2. Candidate: We did a survey of the families, and we talked to other societies to get more volunteers. We basically showed that Saturday was important to people.

      Ownership 1 of 5: Says "we" every time. The interviewer still does not know which part was the candidate's.

    3. Interviewer: What did you do yourself, though?

    4. Candidate: I was involved in the survey, and I helped with the presentation to the committee.

      Specificity 2 of 5: "Involved in" and "helped with" are the phrases that most often bring a third follow-up on the same point.

  3. 3. Follow-up: why that approach?

    What the interviewer is looking for: The reasoning behind the action, and ideally what else was considered and why it was dropped.

    Strong run

    1. Interviewer: Why go to the president first, instead of making your case at the meeting?

    2. Candidate: Because the president had proposed the closure, and I did not want the committee to see it as me against the president. If we disagreed in private first, the president could change position without losing face. I also considered just asking for more volunteers by email, but we had tried that twice and it had not worked.

      Structure 5 of 5: Answers the why in the first sentence, then gives the option considered and why it was dropped.

    Weak run

    1. Interviewer: Why did you think a survey would change anyone's mind?

    2. Candidate: I think data is always important, so it made sense to get some.

      Specificity 2 of 5: A general belief, not a reason tied to this person or this decision.

  4. 4. Follow-up: what did the other person say?

    What the interviewer is looking for: The other person's view in their own words, shown fairly, and what the candidate did in response.

    Strong run

    1. Interviewer: What did the president say when you showed the results?

    2. Candidate: The president said, "The families are not the problem, the volunteers are. I am the one who ends up doing the shift when people drop out." That was fair, so I changed my ask. I offered to run the Saturday rota myself for the trial term and to cover any empty slot personally. After that the president agreed to back the trial at the meeting.

      Specificity 5 of 5: Quotes the other person, treats the objection as fair, and changes the ask in response.

    Weak run

    1. Interviewer: Who disagreed, and what did they say?

    2. Candidate: The president did not want to keep it open. They were quite negative about it, to be honest, and not very open to new ideas.

      Ownership 2 of 5: Describes the other person as the problem instead of saying what they said and how the candidate responded.

  5. 5. Follow-up: how do you know it worked?

    What the interviewer is looking for: Evidence: a number or a named outcome, and a link from the candidate's action to the result.

    Strong run

    1. Interviewer: How do you know keeping Saturday open was the right call?

    2. Candidate: Two numbers. 52 of the 70 Saturday families, about 74 percent, told us they could not come on a weekday because of work, so closing would have cut them off. And during the trial term we served 68 families a week on Saturdays with a rota of 14 volunteers, so no one had to cover more than one shift a month.

      Evidence 5 of 5: Two numbers, each tied to the decision.

    Weak run

    1. Interviewer: How do you know it worked?

    2. Candidate: People were happy, and Saturday is still running, I think.

      Evidence 1 of 5: No number and no clear outcome, although the candidate had both: 68 families a week and a full rota.

  6. 6. Follow-up: what would you do differently?

    What the interviewer is looking for: One concrete change the candidate would make, and ideally evidence that they have made it since.

    Strong run

    1. Interviewer: What would you do differently?

    2. Candidate: I would survey the families before the closure was proposed, not after. The question had been on the table for a month before I acted, and the president felt ambushed. Since then, when I disagree with a plan, I take the data to the person who owns it before it becomes a vote.

      Reflection 5 of 5: A specific change, the reason for it, and a habit that shows it stuck.

    Weak run

    1. Interviewer: What would you do differently?

    2. Candidate: Maybe communicate more. I learned that communication is really important.

      Reflection 1 of 5: A general lesson that could come from any story. The strong version names one concrete change.

The interviewer's scorecards

Each criterion is scored from 1 to 5, the same scale as the Partner mode rubric, for a total out of 25.

Strong run

24 of 25

Strong performance

Structure5 of 5
A one-minute story, then a direct answer to each follow-up.
Ownership5 of 5
Every action is the candidate's own, with "we" kept for the group's result.
Specificity5 of 5
Days, a quote, and the exact change of ask.
Evidence5 of 5
Numbers for the need and for the outcome.
Reflection4 of 5
A real change of habit. Could add what happened the next time it was used.

Verdict: Holds up under every follow-up: each answer adds a new fact rather than repeating the story.

Weak run

7 of 25

Early stage: focus on the lowest criterion first

Structure2 of 5
The story had no action and no result, so the follow-ups had to build it.
Ownership1 of 5
"We" throughout, and the other person described only as an obstacle.
Specificity2 of 5
"Involved in", "helped with" and "basically" in place of actions.
Evidence1 of 5
No numbers, although the story had them.
Reflection1 of 5
A general lesson with no change attached.

Verdict: The experience was strong; the telling hid it. Rebuild the Action in "I" statements and learn the two numbers.

What separated the two runs

  • Same experience, told twice. The strong version holds up under five follow-ups because every answer adds a fact: a day, a number, a quote.
  • "We" once is fine. It becomes a problem when the interviewer has to ask "what did you do?" twice.
  • A strong answer about the other person quotes them fairly and shows what changed because of it.
  • Reflection is judged on one concrete change, not on a general lesson.

Now try it