|
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
id: behavioral-interview-senior-candidates
|
|
|
|
|
title: 'Behavioral interviews for senior candidates'
|
|
|
|
|
description: How to prepare for Software Engineer behavioral interviews as a senior candidate
|
|
|
|
|
keywords:
|
|
|
|
|
[
|
|
|
|
|
software engineer behavioral interview prep,
|
|
|
|
|
software developer behavioral interview prep,
|
|
|
|
|
behavioral interview software engineer,
|
|
|
|
|
how to prepare for behavioral interview software engineer,
|
|
|
|
|
google behavioral interview,
|
|
|
|
|
facebook behavioral interview,
|
|
|
|
|
amazon behavioral interview,
|
|
|
|
|
microsoft behavioral interview,
|
|
|
|
|
senior behavioral interview,
|
|
|
|
|
staff engineer behavioral interview,
|
|
|
|
|
principal engineer behavioral interview,
|
|
|
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
|
sidebar_label: Preparing for senior candidates
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
import InDocAd from './\_components/InDocAd';
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_The following page is a collaboration with [Austen McDonald](https://www.linkedin.com/in/austenmc/), former Senior Engineering Manager and Hiring Committee Chair at Meta, and author of [Mastering Behavioral Interviews](http://thebehavioral.tech/)._
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As you advance in your engineering career, behavioral interviews become increasingly critical—and challenging. While junior engineers might skate by with weak behavioral performance if their coding is strong, senior roles (Staff+ and above) hinge on these conversations. You're being evaluated for your ability to drive organizational impact, navigate complexity, and lead others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The stakes are higher too. Senior hiring mistakes cascade across teams, making interviewers naturally more cautious. A Staff Engineer who can't resolve cross-team conflicts or a Principal who struggles with ambiguous technical decisions can derail entire initiatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here are some key ways to approach and improve your behavioral interviews as a senior candidate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Common Pitfalls in Senior Behaviorals
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While senior candidates face many of the same challenges as other candidates, they encounter unique pitfalls that can undermine their interviews. These stem from both higher expectations and the complexity of leadership work itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Lack of structure leading to incomplete signal coverage:** Unlike junior candidates who might be prodded through their stories by the interviewer, senior candidates are expected to proactively demonstrate their scope. The problem compounds when interviewers interrupt or dive into rabbit holes, as they often do at this level. As a senior candidate, you need to guide the conversation toward the most relevant signal—which means knowing what that signal is in advance. See Story Organization below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Neglecting the full spectrum of leadership:** Senior roles require influence across multiple dimensions, but candidates often tell stories from only one perspective. I frequently hear stories focused purely on technical decisions or product outcomes, missing the equally important people leadership; risk, capacity, and change management; strategy work; and stakeholder management aspects. See Choosing Projects below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Communicating actions, leaving out frameworks:** Senior candidates should demonstrate systematic thinking, including the decision-making framework that led to those actions. Simply listing individual actions makes you sound like an executor rather than a strategic thinker and opens you up to misinterpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Verbosity:** Communication is central to these roles, so talking too much is an easy habit to fall into. There’s a lot to cover in limited time and you need to adapt to the signal requested by the interviewer and provide only the most relevant context. See [this post](https://thebehavioral.substack.com/p/avoiding-too-much-detail-in-behavioral) for more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Opening yourself to uncharitable interpretations:** Senior candidates face higher scrutiny, which means stories, or even individual actions, that might be acceptable for more junior candidates can raise red flags when told by someone at a senior level. This requires thinking defensively about how your stories might be interpreted. See the Thinking Defensively section below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Story Selection: Beyond Pure Technical Impact
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the senior level, your project stories need to demonstrate multifaceted leadership that spans the full spectrum of modern engineering work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Choose projects with leadership complexity:** Look for initiatives that involved multiple teams, ambiguous requirements, and/or significant technical risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Demonstrate the full leadership spectrum:** Your stories should include evidence across four key dimensions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Technical leadership:** Architecture decisions, technology choices, technical debt management
|
|
|
|
|
- **People leadership:** Mentoring, conflict resolution, team building, hiring and performance management
|
|
|
|
|
- **Process and operational leadership:** Establishing engineering practices, incident response, capacity planning
|
|
|
|
|
- **Strategic and business leadership:** Roadmap planning, stakeholder management, resource allocation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<InDocAd />
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Story Organization & Delivery: Managing Narrative Complexity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior-level projects are inherently complex, often spanning months or years with multiple workstreams and stakeholders. Because the stories are longer, traditional STAR formatting breaks down when trying to capture this complexity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Use the "Table of Contents" approach:** Begin with a brief overview of the major themes or phases you'll cover. For example: "This migration had three critical parts: the technical architecture decisions, managing organizational change across five teams, and handling the customer communication during the transition."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Front-load the impact:** Don't bury your results at the end. Senior interviewers may interrupt with detailed follow-ups, and you might never reach your conclusion. Include the results in the Situation section, with the business impact, then explain how you achieved it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Prepare for interruptions:** Speaking of interruptions, senior behavioral interviews tend to be more conversational but also more impatient. Interviewers will dive deep into decision-making processes, ask about alternatives you considered, or explore specific aspects of team dynamics. Prepare modular story components you can expand or condense based on their interests. After you finish a follow up question, nudge the interviewer back to the next theme so you can continue to deliver signal on what you accomplished.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Add details that demonstrate scope:** Every detail should serve a purpose—to show technical complexity, organizational challenge, or strategic thinking. Mentioning "coordinating across 12 engineers in 4 time zones" signals scope. Describing "migrating 500M+ daily transactions with zero downtime" demonstrates both technical and business impact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Leave out details that result in redundant takeaways:** The natural follow up to adding those kinds of details is leaving out ones that have the same takeaways you’ve established. If you’re discussing the third challenging technical situation on this project in gory detail, you are spending time harping on the same message—”I am technical”—when you could be using that time to establish other aspects of your career.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Know your audience:** Interviewers at this level can operate with less systematic structure and higher variance in interviewer approaches or you might be interviewed by XFN partners. Pay attention to what they're probing for and adjust your stories accordingly. A VP might care more about business impact and organizational alignment, a PM will ask about working with non-technical partners, while a Principal Engineer might dive deep into technical decision-making frameworks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Observe and respond to your interviewer:** Watch for the listener’s engagement while you tell your story and adjust your level of detail accordingly. If they are frequently asking for elaboration, then provide that up front. If they haven’t written anything down for a while, consider whether you’re sharing relevant actions you’ve taken and consider moving on to another part of the story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Thinking Defensively
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Behavioral interviewers make subjective judgments in 45-60 minutes, often reading between the lines and jumping to conclusions. Senior interviewers, having witnessed hiring mistakes, are naturally cautious—especially for leadership roles where a problematic hire can cascade across the organization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even when your actions weren't "wrong," you can leave yourself open to uncharitable interpretations. Any gaps in your narrative get filled with assumptions that may not favor you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read more about thinking defensively on [this post](https://thebehavioral.substack.com/p/thinking-defensively-in-behavioral) from Mastering Behavioral Interviews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Common Problematic Framings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Passive ownership:** "I came to the sprint meeting and the manager assigned me this ticket..." signals weak ownership and junior-level thinking rather than business-focused initiative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Lack of proactivity:** "The codebase lacked test coverage so it took me a while..." or "The executive didn't have visibility so it was under-resourced..." suggests you notice problems but don't drive solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Letting ambiguity persist:** "The stakeholders had different opinions, so we scheduled several alignment meetings..." shows weak decision-making rather than driving through uncertainty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**One-way communication:** "The team documented the API changes in our wiki, but some teams still had integration issues..." treats communication as broadcast rather than ensuring understanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Identifying Weak Spots
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use mock interviewers to spot story weaknesses you can't see yourself. Review your stories for potential negative signal by journaling about weaknesses. Be suspicious of follow-up questions—they often target perceived weaknesses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Defensive Strategies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The key is proactively addressing concerns and carefully framing your stories to avoid uncharitable interpretations that could derail your candidacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Elide problematic parts:** Instead of mentioning your manager assigned the ticket, say "I came out of the sprint meeting with this high-impact task..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Proactively frame unavoidable issues:** Explain your rationale. For the stakeholder alignment example: "We strategized extensively and came in with a clear position, but executives were at odds about strategic direction. I realized this wasn't a product decision but a business question, so I prepared data on user engagement and revenue impact, then facilitated a decision-making session to resolve the strategic conflict with concrete evidence."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Acknowledge mistakes with learning:** "The team documented changes in our wiki, but some teams had integration issues. I realized we were hasty launching without coordination. I led changes to our process, having the tech lead add Change Management to planning docs for the future."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_Interested in more behavioral content? Check out [Mastering Behavioral Interviews](https://thebehavioral.tech/) for a complete preparation guide._
|