So What Club
Start free

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. 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

    1. Interviewer: Tell me about a time you took the initiative to fix something that was not your job.

    2. 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

    1. Interviewer: Tell me about a time you took the initiative to fix something that was not your job.

    2. 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. 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

    1. Interviewer: What exactly did you do first?

    2. 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

    1. Interviewer: What exactly did you do?

    2. 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. 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

    1. Interviewer: Why did you take this on when you were hired to do something else?

    2. 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

    1. Interviewer: Why did you take it on?

    2. 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. 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

    1. Interviewer: What was the biggest obstacle?

    2. 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

    1. Interviewer: What was the hardest part?

    2. 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. 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

    1. Interviewer: Who was not convinced, and what did they do?

    2. 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

    1. Interviewer: Did anyone push back?

    2. 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. 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

    1. Interviewer: How do you know the drop came from your sheet?

    2. 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

    1. Interviewer: How do you know it worked?

    2. 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. 7. Follow-up: what would you do differently?

    What the interviewer is looking for: One concrete change, with the reason for it.

    Strong run

    1. Interviewer: What would you do differently?

    2. 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

    1. Interviewer: What would you do differently?

    2. 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 25

Strong 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 25

Early 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