PEI storytelling delivery

Question

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?)

Answer 1

Clarity and structure is what they evaluate. From "hi" to "goodbye".

Most candidates miss this: McKinsey isn't testing if you have good stories. They're testing if you can communicate like a consultant under pressure. Every word from hello to exit is a work sample (rehearse in front of mirror/video recording).

Your "narrative hook" or "chronological drama" signals "I need time to warm up before I get clear." it's a straight minus into score sheet.

What interviewers are scoring:

Can you frame a problem in 10 seconds?
Can you signpost your thinking so they never get lost?
Can you land a crisp takeaway without meandering?

Delivery and pov
When you open with suspense: Interviewer thinks "oh gosh this is gonna be long isn it"
When you open with "Prompt fit + stakes + my impact": Interviewer thinks "good"

Amplified perception - this person cannot keep client interested in any convo. good for coffee chats and dinners. not for client stake communications.

Q1 Cut the "would you like to hear more?"
They asked the question, they want to hear more. Start with the punchline so they know you nailed the prompt.

"I had to influence a blocking stakeholder 3 days before a board meeting by shifting from data arguments to addressing his ownership concerns. We got approval 24 hours later."

That gives them the prompt fit, the tension, and the outcome in 10 seconds.

Q2
Pure chronological makes you ramble and boring as hell.

Say: "I took three main actions." Then tell the story of those actions naturally.

"First, I tested the data argument, which failed. That told me it wasn't a logic problem. Second, I set up a 1:1 coffee to find the real blocker-it was ego, not numbers. Third, I rewrote the proposal to put his name on it."

if possible --> Quantify the win (time saved, dollars protected) and always end with a lesson ("I learned to diagnose emotion before pitching logic"). That's the consultant voice.

Answer 2

That is an excellent, high-value question—the difference between a good story and a story optimized for a McKinsey PEI often comes down to these exact delivery nuances.

For Question 1 (The Hook), you must always lean toward Approach B (Answer-first). In a consulting interview, clarity and fit immediately outweigh narrative suspense. The interviewer is not grading a novel; they are grading against a rubric item ("Did the candidate successfully address the prompt in a high-stakes setting?"). When you open with Approach B, you immediately de-risk the moment for the interviewer, confirming that you understood the question and have a relevant story. A useful compromise is a B-Hybrid: state the prompt fit, briefly mention the key action (shifting from data to motivation), and then add the high-stakes context (executive meeting).

For Question 2 (The Body), the structure should guide the delivery—so prioritize Approach B (Structured) as the internal framework, but deliver it with the fluidity of a narrative. The goal of the PEI is not just to tell what happened, but to demonstrate how you think. Approach A (Chronological narrative) often forces the interviewer to hunt for your logic. Approach B (Structured) explicitly lays out your diagnostic process (Step 1: diagnose resistance; Step 2: test hypothesis; Step 3: implement the refined solution).

The best stories use the structure (B) as the backbone for preparation and rehearsal, ensuring you hit all the key consulting markers (diagnostic thinking, specific actions, clear results). Then, when you deliver it, you can smoothly transition between those structured steps using narrative language. The interviewer should be able to instantly map your three steps back to the key action required by the prompt.

Hope it helps!

Answer 3

Hi there,

B and B. On another note, I hope you're not actually going to talk verbatim like how you typed it because no one really talks like that in real life and you're going to come off as ingenuine. I suggest you speak more like yourself.

Answer 4

hey there :)

For McKinsey style PEI, Approach B (story1) usually lands better. They value clarity and direct prompt fit from the start, so answer first with a crisp framing, then tell the story in a compelling way. You can still make it engaging without sacrificing structure. Happy to practice a PEI together if you’d like.

best,
Alessa :)

Answer 5

Actually, they are both very good and what will follow (i.e., the actual story) will make more of a difference to the performance than further tailoring the pitch.

The whole point of the pitch is to tailor it as much as possible to how the question was formulated.

If you're preparing the PEI, I'm sharing here a material I've built which is specifically targeted at this:

• • Video Course: Master the McKinsey PEI

Best,
Cristian