Hi everyone — would really value some advice on PEI delivery.
QUESTION 1
I’m deciding between two different approaches to the opening “hook”:
Approach A — Narrative / Intrigue-first
Open with tension and stakes to draw the interviewer in, for example:
“A senior stakeholder strongly disagreed with our recommendation, and with an executive meeting only days away, I had to find a way to bring him on board. Would you like to hear more?”
This leans more into storytelling and engagement early on, but is less explicitly answer-first.
Approach B — Answer-first
Start with a clear summary that proves it fits the prompt before building the story, for example:
“This is a story about influencing without authority in a high-stakes setting. We faced resistance from a key stakeholder ahead of an executive meeting, and by shifting from data-led persuasion to understanding his motivations, I was able to realign him. Would you like to hear more?”
This prioritises clarity and prompt-fit from the outset, but with less suspense. In your experience, which tends to land better in a McKinsey-style PEI?
QUESTION 2
Similarly, once past the hook, I’m debating between two delivery styles for the body of the story:
Approach A — Story-driven (chronological narrative)
“I initially tried to align the stakeholder through data and benchmarking, but that only increased resistance. With the deadline approaching, we were at a cross roads. So at this point, I stepped away from group discussions, met him 1:1, uncovered that his resistance was rooted in ownership concerns, and adjusted my approach accordingly.”
Approach B — Structured (consulting-style framing)
“I addressed the stakeholder misalignment in three steps: first, tested data-led persuasion; second, shifted to 1:1 conversations to diagnose the root concern; third, reframed the recommendation to give him clearer ownership.”
Would really appreciate perspectives on which style tends to work better — or maybe a hybrid (and if so lean more towards which one?)
