McKinsey PEI Questions

Speaking from the interviewer side: we do not stick to the website wording. The website describes attributes, not scripts.

In real interviews, PEI questions are often layered or tightened to introduce complexity. This is intentional.

Examples like:

• limited authority
• strong disagreement
• senior or difficult stakeholders
• time pressure or ambiguity

are very common follow-ups, even if not stated upfront.

Why we do this:

• Many candidates prepare clean, polished stories that work only in ideal conditions
• Layering helps distinguish real leadership and influence from title-based or low-friction situations
• It also tests adaptability, judgment, and honesty under pressure

How strong candidates prepare:

• Do not prepare one story per attribute
• Prepare a small set of genuinely complex stories that can be flexed
• Each story should work even when:
  • you had little or no formal authority
  • there was disagreement or resistance
  • the outcome was uncertain

If a constraint is added and your story is not a perfect match:

• Do not panic or try to switch stories mid-answer
• Acknowledge the constraint and frame how you influenced despite it
• Interviewers care more about the quality of your actions and reasoning than perfect semantic alignment

PEI really is about showing that you have repeatedly demonstrated leadership and influence when it was hard, messy, and uncomfortable.

As someone who's conducted these interviews at Bain, let me tell you how it actually works.

The format is similar across MBB. We're testing the same things: leadership, teamwork, handling conflict, driving results. The specific phrasing varies by interviewer.

I don't read from a script. I might start with something simple like "Tell me about a time you influenced a team" and then dig in based on what you share. Or I might add a constraint upfront: "Tell me about a time you led through a difficult situation where people disagreed with you."

Here's what I'm actually looking for:

Depth, not polish. I can tell when someone has memorized a story versus actually lived it. If I push on a detail and you freeze or give a vague answer, that's a red flag. If you can go deeper and show real reflection, that's what I want.

Self-awareness. I'll ask what you learned or what you'd do differently. Candidates who say "nothing, it went perfectly" aren't being honest. I want to see you can reflect and grow.

Flexibility. If I add a constraint and your story doesn't fit, don't force it. Just say "that situation didn't have that element, but I have another example" and pivot. That's fine. What's not fine is making things up.

Your specific role. Tell me what you did, not what your team did. If you keep saying "we" and I can't figure out your contribution, I'll keep pushing.

My advice: know your stories well enough to tell them from any angle. If you actually did what you're describing, the follow-ups shouldn't scare you. Don't over-rehearse to the point where you sound scripted.

McKinsey's PEI works the same way. The themes are similar. Just be ready to go deep and stay genuine.

Hi there,

Short answer: interviewers do not stick rigidly to the website wording, and yes, they often add constraints.

In McKinsey PEI, the attribute is fixed (Leadership, Personal Impact, Drive, Growth, etc.), but the prompt is flexible. Interviewers frequently layer in conditions like limited authority, disagreement, pressure, ambiguity, or senior stakeholders. That is intentional. They want to see whether your story shows depth, not whether you memorized a script.

How to prepare so you are not thrown off:

1. Have 2 to 3 core stories per attribute, not one
2. Choose stories that naturally include tension: conflict, resistance, tradeoffs, or uncertainty
3. Practice reframing the same story depending on the angle the interviewer asks for

A strong PEI story should survive follow-ups like:

• What if you had no formal authority
• What if people disagreed strongly
• What if you failed at first

If a story only works when told in one very specific way, it is usually too narrow. So don’t optimize for perfect wording. Optimize for rich situations that let you demonstrate the trait from multiple angles. That’s what McKinsey is actually testing.

In practice, interviewers are not bound to the exact wording on the website. The attribute labels (Leadership, Personal Impact, Drive, etc.) are just anchors. Interviewers often layer additional constraints into the question (e.g., limited authority, strong resistance, ambiguity, conflict) to increase the signal and avoid overly “polished” stories.

That’s why strong PEI stories should almost always include a real challenge by default such as:

• Limited authority or no formal leadership
• Pushback or disagreement from others
• Conflicting incentives or tough stakeholders
• High stakes, time pressure, or ambiguity

If your story already contains tension, trade-offs, and obstacles, it will usually still work even when the interviewer adds qualifiers like “despite disagreement” or “without authority.”

How to prepare for this:

• Don’t memorize answers to exact questions - prepare robust stories, not rigid scripts
• Stress-test each story: What was hard? Who disagreed? What power did I not have?
• Be ready to reframe the same story to emphasize different aspects depending on the follow-up

Bottom line: interviewers may add requirements, but they’re not trying to trick you. They’re looking for evidence of the attribute under pressure so if your stories already include a meaningful challenge, you’re good.

That is a very sharp question and gets to the core difference between basic preparation and what the top candidates actually do. You are absolutely correct to worry about the generic phrasing.

The reality is that interviewers are rarely satisfied with the simple, surface-level dimensions. The attributes (Leadership, Connection, Personal Impact) are fixed, but the prompt itself is just the entry mechanism. Interviewers are trained to use the follow-up questions to layer on complexity and push the story to its limit. They aren't trying to invalidate your story; they are trying to see if your actions hold up under the most difficult conditions, which is how they differentiate between a candidate who simply "showed leadership" and one who "exhibited exceptional leadership under extreme duress."

This means the constraints—like "despite limited authority" or "with strong disagreements"—are often intentionally reserved for the probe phase, not the initial prompt. They need to hear the initial story first, and then they will push on its weaknesses or complexities. For example, if you tell a Connection story that sounds too easy, the interviewer will pivot instantly to ask, "But what was the core conflict in that situation? Did you still have to deliver bad news to that stakeholder?"

To prepare effectively, you must build complexity into your core stories upfront. Don't just prepare three simple stories; prepare three or four highly robust narratives that each contain elements of disagreement, ambiguity, and high stakes. You need to stress-test these narratives yourself: How would the story change if you had no budget? If your key teammate suddenly quit? If the goal changed halfway through? If you can answer those questions instantly, any layering the interviewer adds won't surprise you, it will just give you a new angle to showcase your depth.

Hope it helps!

Great question.

Short answer - recently, they are asking the question just as it is on the website. 

I've noticed the trend in the last few months. 

Before that, they would play a lot more with how it was formulated. 

My strong recommendation, nevertheless, is to always listen to how the question is formulated and provide a pitch and then a story that is specifically tailored to that question.

I've actually built a tailored PEI program here that you will find useful:

• Video Course: Master the McKinsey PEI

Best,

Cristian

Hi there,

They do not necessarily have to use the same wording, this is up to the interviewer. If you're confused, you may ask for clarifications to be sure of which they're asking.

If they ask for more specifics, then be ready to adapt your story accordingly. Memorizing your stories word-for-word isn't going to cut it.