Personal experience interview
Personal experience interview on initiative, strong and weak
One story about fixing a problem nobody owned, told twice under six follow-up questions: once with the size of the problem, the obstacle and the before and after numbers, and once as a list of claims about being proactive.
A written example. Not a recording of a real candidate.
Before you read
The story: an intern in the finance team of a logistics company noticed that invoice errors were costing the team hours every week, and fixed the cause without being asked. 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. The story
What the interviewer is looking for: The size of the problem, why it was not the candidate's job, what they did about it, and the result in numbers.
Strong run
Interviewer: Tell me about a time you took the initiative to fix something that was not your job.
Candidate: During a ten-week internship in the finance team of a logistics company, I was hired to update supplier records. In my second week I noticed that about 3 percent of the 1,400 invoices we processed each month had errors, roughly 42 a month, and each took about 2 hours to fix. No one owned the problem, so I asked my manager for two hours a week to work on it. I sorted a month of errors by cause, found that most came from a few mismatched fields, and built a checking sheet that flagged them before an invoice was paid. By the end of the internship the error rate was down to 0.5 percent, about 7 a month, and the team still uses the sheet.
Structure 5 of 5: Sizes the problem in the first answer, says why it was not the candidate's job, and ends with before and after numbers.
Weak run
Interviewer: Tell me about a time you took the initiative to fix something that was not your job.
Candidate: In my internship I noticed there were quite a lot of errors in invoices, so I decided to take the initiative and fix it. I created a tool that helped the team reduce errors significantly. My manager was really happy with it.
Structure 2 of 5: The whole story in three sentences: no size of the problem, no steps, and "significantly" in place of a number.
2. Follow-up: what exactly did you do?
What the interviewer is looking for: The first concrete steps, and how the candidate worked out what to do, not only what they built.
Strong run
Interviewer: What exactly did you do first?
Candidate: I pulled every invoice that had been corrected in the previous month from the weekly export files, which gave me 42 cases, and I tagged each one with its cause by hand. It took me two afternoons. Four causes explained most of them, and the biggest was a purchase order number typed into the wrong field.
Ownership 5 of 5: The candidate's own first steps, how long they took, and what they found.
Weak run
Interviewer: What exactly did you do?
Candidate: I analyzed the errors and made a spreadsheet with checks. It was quite complex, with a lot of formulas.
Specificity 2 of 5: Describes the tool, not the choices. The interviewer learns how complex the sheet was, not how the candidate thinks.
3. Follow-up: why take it on?
What the interviewer is looking for: A reason rooted in what the candidate saw, not a claim about their character.
Strong run
Interviewer: Why did you take this on when you were hired to do something else?
Candidate: Because I could see the cost every day: two people on the team spent part of each afternoon fixing errors, and it was the part of the job everyone disliked. I also made sure it would not slow my own project, which is why I asked for two hours a week rather than just starting.
Structure 4 of 5: The reason comes first, then how the candidate protected the assigned work. Could name the other option considered.
Weak run
Interviewer: Why did you take it on?
Candidate: I am a very proactive person, and I always look for ways to add value.
Specificity 1 of 5: A claim about character instead of a reason. The strong version names the cost the candidate saw, about 84 hours of rework a month.
4. Follow-up: the biggest obstacle
What the interviewer is looking for: Drive shows most clearly in how the candidate got past something that stopped them.
Strong run
Interviewer: What was the biggest obstacle?
Candidate: I had no access to the billing system, and IT said a request would take 6 weeks. Instead of waiting, I built the sheet on the weekly export files the team already received, so it needed no new access. The trade-off was that it ran once a week, not live, so I asked the team to run it every Monday before the payment run.
Specificity 5 of 5: A real obstacle, the way around it, and the trade-off that came with it.
Weak run
Interviewer: What was the hardest part?
Candidate: Getting people to use it. Some people in the team were not very open to change.
Ownership 2 of 5: Blames others and says nothing about what the candidate did to win them over.
5. Follow-up: who was not convinced?
What the interviewer is looking for: What the doubter actually said, and what the candidate did to bring them along.
Strong run
Interviewer: Who was not convinced, and what did they do?
Candidate: My manager's first reaction was, "Nice idea, but your project comes first." So I showed the tagged list of 42 errors and the 2 hours each one took, which came to about 84 hours a month, and I promised a short update every Friday. After the first Friday, my manager asked me to present it to the whole team.
Ownership 5 of 5: Quotes the doubt, answers it with the numbers, and shows what changed.
Weak run
Interviewer: Did anyone push back?
Candidate: Not really. My manager was quite supportive.
Specificity 2 of 5: Misses the chance to show how support was won. In the real story the manager had doubts at first.
6. Follow-up: how do you know it was you?
What the interviewer is looking for: Before and after numbers, and a reason to believe the change came from the candidate's work.
Strong run
Interviewer: How do you know the drop came from your sheet?
Candidate: The error rate fell from 3 percent to 0.5 percent in the two months after the sheet started, while the number of invoices stayed at about 1,400 a month and nothing else in the process changed. That is about 35 fewer errors a month, or roughly 70 hours of rework saved.
Evidence 5 of 5: Before and after, a check that nothing else changed, and the saving in hours.
Weak run
Interviewer: How do you know it worked?
Candidate: The errors went down a lot. I think it was more than half.
Evidence 2 of 5: A guess, although the real figures were a fall from 3 percent to 0.5 percent.
7. Follow-up: what would you do differently?
What the interviewer is looking for: One concrete change, with the reason for it.
Strong run
Interviewer: What would you do differently?
Candidate: I would involve the two people who fixed the errors from the first day. I built the first version alone, and in its first week they found two causes I had missed. Now I start by asking the people who do the work what goes wrong.
Reflection 5 of 5: A specific change, what prompted it, and the habit it became.
Weak run
Interviewer: What would you do differently?
Candidate: Honestly, not much. I think it went well. Maybe start earlier.
Reflection 1 of 5: Misses the chance to show learning. The strong version names one change: involve the people who do the work from the first day.
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 25Strong performance
- Structure4 of 5
- A clear story and direct answers; the why could name the other option considered.
- Ownership5 of 5
- Clear about what the candidate did and what the team did.
- Specificity5 of 5
- Days, a quoted doubt, and the way around the access problem.
- Evidence5 of 5
- Before and after rates, the hours saved, and a reason to credit the sheet.
- Reflection5 of 5
- One concrete change that became a habit.
Verdict: Shows drive through actions and numbers, not adjectives.
Weak run
8 of 25Early stage: focus on the lowest criterion first
- Structure2 of 5
- A short summary with no size, steps or result.
- Ownership2 of 5
- Blamed the team for the hardest part.
- Specificity1 of 5
- Claims about being proactive in place of reasons and steps.
- Evidence2 of 5
- "More than half, I think" instead of the real before and after.
- Reflection1 of 5
- No learning offered.
Verdict: A good story underneath. Learn its numbers and replace each claim with the action behind it.
What separated the two runs
- Initiative is shown by what you noticed, what it cost and what you did before anyone asked, not by calling yourself proactive.
- Size the problem in the first answer: 42 errors a month at about 2 hours each tells the interviewer why it mattered.
- The obstacle answer is where drive shows: the strong version found a way around a 6-week wait instead of waiting.
- "More than half, I think" invites another follow-up. Know your before and after numbers.
Now try it
- Drill one of your stories
Pick a saved story and answer five follow-ups, typed or out loud.
- Read the fit lesson
The story shape, the four dimensions and the follow-ups to rehearse.