Got dinged after second round at McKinsey, about a month ago. I asked for and received feedback. Sharing the whole picture because I think the pattern I fell into is common.
Background: Applied for an implementation specialist role. Got through the PSG (the gamified assessment), first round, then second round, then no. Six weeks total.
The feedback they gave me:
Two themes came back.
First: my case structure was "technically sound but not client-ready." I asked what that meant. The recruiter explained that my frameworks were recognizable (market sizing, cost-benefit trees, that kind of thing) but I was driving the case like a student driving a case, not like a consultant who'd walk a CFO through it. The cadence, the language, the confidence in narrating my own thinking out loud. It felt rehearsed rather than natural.
Second: my PEI stories were good but lacked "conviction." I had prepared tight, STAR-format stories. But apparently they came across as descriptive rather than driven. McKinsey wants to hear that you personally saw the problem differently from everyone else, that you pushed for something, that there was a moment of real tension. My stories were too neat. Real leadership stories have friction in them.
What I'd do differently: More mock case interviews with humans, not just solo practice. I drilled structure for weeks. I did almost no live practice with someone pushing back on me in real time. That's exactly what the case interview simulates. Rebuild my PEI stories around the specific moment of tension. Not the outcome. The moment I had to make a call that others disagreed with. Not underestimate the PSG. I went in cold and while I passed, I think I was borderline. It's not just a personality assessment. It's cognitive.
I'm interviewing at Bain next month. Same prep arc, different execution.