YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Behavioral Interview: Common Questions Broken Down by Ex-Meta & Amazon Senior Managers

Behavioral Interview: Common Questions Broken Down by Ex-Meta & Amazon Senior Managers — Transcript

by Hello Interview · 14,572 words · 2,102 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00All
0:00right. Hey folks. In this video, we're
0:02going to do something a little different
0:03by peeling back the covers on behavioral
0:07interview questions. You might have seen
0:09a list of common questions or gone
0:11through interviews before and thought to
0:12yourself like, "What do they really want
0:15me to talk about?" or "How is this being
0:17evaluated?" In this video, we're going
0:19to go deep to try to walk you through
0:21what interviewers are thinking, what
0:23they're writing down in their
0:24evaluations, potholes to avoid, and tips
0:27for how you can choose from your
0:28experience and present it. Just by way
0:30of introduction, I'm Stefan. I'm one of
0:32the co-founders of Hello Interview. I
0:34was a senior manager at Meta and a bar
0:36raiser at Amazon, and I've conducted
0:38north of 2,000 interviews. I've talked
0:40to a lot of candidates. For this
0:41session, I brought an expert, my friend
0:44Austin, who you might recognize from a
0:45previous discussion that we had on the
0:47channel. Austin led teams across Meta,
0:49including the recruiting products team,
0:51and was hiring committee chair. He's
0:54also an author. I've heard some rumbling
0:56about a book on the horizon. Did you
0:58want to give us a quick plug, Austin?
0:59>> Oh, yeah. Thanks, Devin. It's uh awesome
1:01to be here. Like really fun to talk
1:03about behavioral interviews. And yes, I
1:05have been working on a book. It's called
1:06Mastering Behavioral Interviews for
1:08almost almost two years now, and it is
1:10really close to being ready. I even have
1:12a pre-print right here. I'm really
1:13excited about it. There's not a lot of
1:15behavioral interview content available
1:17on the internet. And so I really wanted
1:18to make something that was awesome for
1:20people who want to work at tech
1:21companies. Uh most of the stuff out
1:23there is just use the STAR method.
1:24Doesn't go very much beyond that. So in
1:26this book, I'm sharing insights on what
1:28companies are looking for, step-by-step
1:30guide on how to prepare, and some
1:32advanced storytelling techniques for
1:33senior folks. So if people want to learn
1:35more about it, they can check out uh my
1:37Substack newsletter.
1:38>> Perfect. And I've actually gotten to
1:40read a little bit of this preprint. It
1:41is good stuff. So definitely check out
1:44Austin's newsletter. I'll include it uh
1:46down in the comments. Also, if you're
1:48looking for more detailed information
1:50about how questions are evaluated, we
1:52actually maintain a bank of community
1:54reported questions on the Hello
1:56Interview website. And on th those
1:58pages, we have breakdowns, peer answers,
2:00editorials. Definitely worth checking
2:03out. I'll include a link as well. I want
2:06to start with a celebrity question that
2:07I see asked in almost every interview.
2:10Tell me about a conflict you had with a
2:12co-orker. How did you resolve it? And
2:15this question, we've seen it reported at
2:18Meta, Amazon, Apple, Data Dog. Austin,
2:21what are interviewers trying to learn
2:24from this question?
2:26>> Yeah, classic question. I think this is
2:28this is definitely one of the three most
2:30common questions that I prepare my my my
2:33coaching clients for, and you're
2:34definitely going to receive this
2:35question. Think in tech company culture,
2:37we believe that disagreement is this
2:39path to better outcomes. And we believe
2:42that for a really long time. And that's
2:43why companies care about this question,
2:45right? They want to assess your ability
2:47to embrace instead of avoid conflict.
2:49They want to to see whether you're going
2:51to make the team, the product, the
2:53people better at their at their company
2:55when those disagreements come up. And
2:57they're really assessing a number of
2:59very specific skills with this kind of
3:01question. So first, they're assessing,
3:02of course, conflict resolution skills.
3:04Can you navigate a conflict with
3:06empathy? Can you solve problems looking
3:08for win-win solutions? Can you focus on
3:11business outcomes while you are having
3:13this interpersonal conflict? They're
3:15also, of course, assessing communication
3:17skills. So, how do you talk to to
3:19co-workers in different circumstances
3:21and situations? Do you use messaging? Do
3:22you use meetings? Do you use in-person
3:24conversations? And then they're also
3:26getting some assessment of your level.
3:28So, what level you're operating at
3:30inside of a company? There's some data
3:32out there that indicates that this is a
3:33question which is really critical for
3:35assessing whether someone is at a
3:37certain level or not and it's based on
3:39the scope of those conflicts that
3:40they're engaged in.
3:42>> Yeah. Then I I talk with a bunch of uh
3:44candidates and they tell me, you know, I
3:46haven't gotten in a big argument with
3:48someone. I I don't get into conflicts.
3:51What would you say to those people? What
3:53would you suggest to them in terms of
3:55how they can choose from the stories
3:57that exist in their careers? I I hear
3:59this one a lot in in in coaching
4:01experiences, coaching sessions is they
4:03think that the the interviewer is asking
4:06them about whether or not they are
4:07someone who starts conflicts. And of
4:09course, nobody wants to be the person
4:10who starts conflicts, right? And so
4:12everyone begins with this, well, I don't
4:13really have conflicts or d. But that's
4:15not what the person is looking for. We
4:17all have quote unquote conflicts. And
4:18we're not always talking about, you
4:20know, knockdown, drag out, emotional
4:22fights, yelling, screaming. That's not
4:24that can that could be a story that that
4:26goes with this question, but that's not
4:27really what what the person is meaning.
4:29They just mean when are there
4:31disagreements between uh you and someone
4:33else? And this happens all the time.
4:34Disagreements in terms of um you know
4:36how we should prioritize work, how we
4:39should implement um different technical
4:40features, you know, what how we should
4:42run the team, all those things are
4:43really common conflicts. So when you're
4:45going about choosing a conflict or
4:47thinking about conflicts from your past,
4:48you want to pick um ones that fit three
4:51different dimensions. So, one of them is
4:53high stakes. I think if you're having a
4:55conflict over whether or not to use uh
4:57spaces or tabs, this is probably not
4:59like a great conflict to to highlight
5:01unless you're a very junior person. So,
5:03the outcome needs to matter to the
5:05business or to the project. That's
5:06number one. Number two is it needs to
5:08involve you deeply. So, if you were just
5:10a peripheral person in this conflict, if
5:12you were just uh in the room while the
5:15conflict is happening, but you weren't
5:16central to its uh resolution, then
5:18that's probably not a great story to
5:20tell. And I think especially if you are
5:22new to behavioral interviews, you want
5:24to choose an an example where you were
5:26right. Uh you can tell stories about
5:28when you were wrong. I think that that
5:29that has some value. U we could maybe
5:32talk about that later, but I think it's
5:33much harder to do that uh as a as a
5:35especially if you're just learning how
5:36to do behavioral interviews. So choose
5:38one that where you were right.
5:40>> I like the involvement that you're
5:42calling out here, too, because it seems
5:43like some candidates will go the
5:45opposite direction. instead of choosing
5:46something in in uh consequential, they
5:50will choose a a grand story about
5:53something that happened in their
5:54organization, but it was clear that they
5:56were mostly an audience that they
5:57weren't actually the ones who were were
5:59helping to resolve this conflict or or
6:01move things forward.
6:02>> I think that gets us to this question
6:04about um leveling and what what if you
6:07were a certain level, what kinds of
6:09conflicts should you choose, right? And
6:11um I think that if you're a more junior
6:13or a mid-level person, often times this
6:15is conflicts between you and someone
6:16else like a peer, right? And often times
6:18you may have needed to seek help when
6:21you were resolving this conflict. If
6:23you're more senior, say you're a senior
6:25engineer like level five or a level six
6:27staff engineer, then oftentimes those
6:29conflicts are between uh you and and
6:32someone who's not an engineer, maybe not
6:34on the team, maybe a cross functional
6:36peer like a product manager or maybe
6:38even someone who is off off the team,
6:40right? Another team that you're you're
6:42engaging with, right? And oftentimes
6:43this kind of conflict resolution
6:45involves more than just talking about
6:47things, but it involves some kind of
6:49assessing gathering data and evaluating
6:52it or building a proof of concept,
6:53something like that. And then if you're
6:55a, you know, a staff level person or a
6:57principal engineer or a manager, then
7:00often times these conflicts are
7:02organizational in nature. So they drive
7:04there's some kind of systemic challenge
7:06which exists in the in the organization
7:08that you're a part of. And often times
7:10that resolution involves uh you or
7:12someone else coming to the table with
7:14some kind of solution which which
7:15prevents those future conflicts from
7:17arising.
7:18>> Now I think a lot of candidates really
7:20struggle with their time management.
7:22Either they give a short, you know,
7:2410-second response or they're spending
7:2630 minutes giving the kind of grand
7:28vision here uh without necessarily
7:30giving additional signal to the
7:32interviewer. Do you have any suggestions
7:34for candidates on how they ought to
7:35spend their time uh in coming up with
7:37the response and presenting what their
7:39experience was?
7:40>> Yeah. So, when you're giving a response
7:42for a behavioral interview question,
7:43really what the person is assessing is
7:45those repeatable actions that you are
7:48telling the interviewer that you did.
7:50Those are the things that they're you're
7:51going to be able to take with you when
7:53you join that company. So if you
7:54gathered data, if you went and talked to
7:56the person, if you were empathetic to
7:58their to their their position, those are
8:00the kinds of actions that they're
8:02looking for. So the the the action part
8:04often times we talk about either star,
8:06format, situation, task, action, result,
8:08or Carl, context, action, result,
8:10learnings, no matter what format you
8:12want to use for telling these stories,
8:14that action is right there in the
8:15middle. And that's what everybody should
8:16be spending most of their time on. And
8:18then the other pieces that are around
8:20that whether that's the situation or the
8:22task or the context section whatever you
8:23want to call it those pieces are there
8:25so that that the interviewer can
8:27understand what actions that you took
8:29and why those were the right actions and
8:31then the results and learnings pieces
8:32are there to showcase uh the level and
8:35showcase the impact of what you're doing
8:36and also give a little bit of
8:38self-reflection. So you should spend
8:39most of your time, maybe think about it
8:41as 60% of your time on the actions that
8:44um that that you took during this
8:45conflict and maybe spend just a little
8:47bit of time on the context, maybe 10% of
8:49your time. For this particular question,
8:52it's uh the result part is is is needs
8:55to be kind of deeper than maybe the
8:56result part for other behavioral
8:58interview questions. Often times the
8:59result of some projectoriented question
9:01is well, we shipped the project and then
9:03this was the business result and this is
9:05what happened. But here you have the
9:06result of the conflict itself which is
9:09um you know what happened on the the
9:11architectural choice or process choice
9:12or whatever the the conflict was about.
9:14And then you also have some relationship
9:16state. So what happened between you and
9:18this person. So if you if you resolve
9:20the conflict and the business moves
9:21forward but the person never wants to
9:22work with you again then that's not
9:24really great conflict resolution skills.
9:26So you need to spend a little bit more
9:27time maybe 20% of your time on on uh the
9:30results side. And then ideally I love to
9:33have responses which come with some kind
9:35of learning, some sort of reflection
9:37about what you learned in the
9:38experience, what you would do
9:39differently or what you did in the
9:40future. And I think that that uh that's
9:43a great another like 10% of your time,
9:45just a little bit of time at the end.
9:47>> It seems like there's a ton of actions
9:48that you can kind of cover and you know
9:50there are all sorts of details that we
9:52can get into and fortunately you're
9:54spending the majority of your time here.
9:56Is there kind of a checklist that you
9:58have in mind for things that people
10:00ought to make sure that they cover uh in
10:02giving a great response to a question
10:04like this?
10:05>> Yeah, definitely. I think when I'm
10:06listening to one of these responses and
10:08assessing you as a candidate, I want to
10:10see that you you sought to understand
10:12first or you wanted to understand what
10:14the other person's perspective is. I
10:15think if you rush rush forward with some
10:17sort of solution, then I think that that
10:19really loses out an opportunity to build
10:21connection and and get to the best
10:23solution at the end. So seek to
10:25understand first and then there's some
10:26sort of sign of empathy. So I think
10:28sometimes even in in in emotionally
10:30charged situations or stories that had
10:32some sort of negative impact on you, you
10:35still need to be able to express and
10:36acknowledge the constraints that the
10:37other person was under maybe their
10:39motivations for why they believe
10:41whatever they believed. So showing that
10:42kind of empathy is important. I want
10:44that in my co-workers. So I want that in
10:46in the person that I'm interviewing. And
10:48then ideally um there's some sort of
10:50objective way to resolve this conflict.
10:53So if it's about some architectural
10:55choice, maybe we can build a proof of
10:56concept. If it's about how to prioritize
10:58something, then maybe we'll go and
10:59gather some user research or or do some
11:01data analysis. So whenever we use data
11:04and evidence to make a make decisions, I
11:06think that's a really strong signal to
11:07send the interviewer about yourself. And
11:10um there's a couple of other things. So
11:11I think one of them is often times when
11:13we're having these conflicts, we are
11:15having to communicate with with with
11:17different people, maybe with the person
11:18itself, maybe with our manager, maybe
11:19with other people on the team. And then
11:21the way that you communicate. So the
11:23channel even. So I uh whether it's a
11:25Slack meeting or whether it's a
11:26one-on-one meeting or whether you went
11:27to see them in person. So I think often
11:28times these conflicts sometimes they
11:30start maybe they start in a written
11:31format like on a PR or something and
11:33then they need to move towards a a a
11:35more you know higher bandwidth
11:37experience where it's face to face. So
11:39seeing how the candidate uh chose the
11:41right communication channel and how they
11:43leverage that channel to to move the
11:45conflict forward is really something I
11:47look for. Um and then I would say that
11:49uh kind of towards the end if you're
11:50looking at the resolution ideally the
11:53candidate is coming up with some kind of
11:55win-win situation for this for this
11:57conflict. Maybe the maybe not everybody
11:59gets all the things that they want but
12:01um we make some compromise or the p
12:03other person's needs are acknowledged
12:05and and filled in some way as we exit
12:07this conflict. And then like I mentioned
12:09earlier it's really important that the
12:10conflict preserves the relationship. So
12:12I need to see um that you know at the
12:15end of this actions I need to see that
12:17you worked with this person well in the
12:19future and that's what I mean by uh by
12:21preserving the relationships.
12:23>> There are some candidates when they hear
12:25this question about conflict they
12:27immediately go and think about some
12:28place where they won and I think this
12:30usually misses the the mark for for most
12:33interviewers who are really trying to
12:35understand how did you actually work
12:37with co-workers who are on your team to
12:39go and come up with a better outcome.
12:41And so definitely avoid situations where
12:43you're vilifying your your co-workers or
12:45the other side in some sense. Actually,
12:48the more rational they are and the more
12:50sensible they are, the richer the story
12:52is. So uh avoid situations where the
12:56other side is doing something obviously
12:58stupid uh because those actually don't
13:01make you seem uh a as strong. You know,
13:04these questions are behavioral
13:05questions. Um some candidates will look
13:08at the uh conflict stories and they'll
13:10think about you know what results did I
13:12get at the end which it's important
13:14although Austin I think mentioned
13:15earlier that maybe 10 to 20% of your
13:17time ought to be spent there. Um you
13:19know be careful about those situations
13:21where your emphasis is primarily on some
13:24technical achievement or business
13:25outcome and less on the uh behaviors
13:29between you and your colleagues. Austin,
13:31are there any other kind of red flags or
13:33or things that people ought to avoid in
13:36this question?
13:37>> Yeah, we mentioned a number of them. I
13:38think being unempathetic like like we
13:40talked about before is a big one. So, if
13:42you're focusing on on winning that
13:43argument, for sure. I think one that
13:45that doesn't come up very often in
13:47conversations I've had with folks uh
13:49about they don't identify as a pitfall,
13:51but is it is how does happen a lot,
13:52which is that there's sometimes
13:54candidates hide emotional content. So,
13:57I'm listening to the story and it just
13:58feels like something is missing. And
14:00then I ask a little bit follow-ups and I
14:02find out that, oh, actually there was a
14:04a blowup. The other person maybe blew up
14:05in a meeting or there was some really
14:07emotionally charged experience that the
14:09the candidate had to endure in order to
14:11go through this this conflict. And they
14:12think because we said like what we said
14:15earlier, they think that they should
14:16hide that in some maybe every every
14:18interaction that they described should
14:19somehow be professional. But if the
14:21reality was that the the other other
14:24parties in this conflict were not
14:25professional, I do think that you should
14:27mention that. You need to acknowledge
14:28that in a professional way, you don't
14:29disparage them or insult them. I think
14:31that you need to again acknowledge what
14:33they were going through and what their
14:34motivations were. But if it was a a
14:37difficult meeting and somebody even
14:38yelling at you or cing cursing you out
14:40or whatever, I think acknowledging that
14:42in a professional way showcases that you
14:44can persevere through those kinds of
14:45challenges and come out the other side
14:47with a uh with a successful resolution.
14:49So don't hide emotional content if it's
14:51there in the story. Often times these
14:54conflicts
14:55we wait too long, right? And we we uh
14:58maybe the there's some disagreement, the
15:00disagreement bubbles too long. Maybe
15:02it's it goes it the conversation in the
15:05meeting happens too long or the
15:06conversation over the PR happens too
15:07long before we sort of out of the normal
15:10day-to-day work environment and say this
15:12is a conflict. I need to to handle this
15:13in a different way. And so if that was
15:15the case and you need to frame that
15:17carefully um because that is definitely
15:18something that we're looking for that
15:20that you uh proactively engage in
15:23conflicts in a in a time reasonable
15:25manner. And of course this is much more
15:27important for for the more senior you
15:29are. So if you're a very senior manager
15:31or a very senior IC, you should be
15:33seeing conflicts ahead of time and
15:34engaging with them quickly.
15:36>> Yeah. I mean I think that actually is a
15:38great segue into the the next thing that
15:40I wanted to touch on which is just you
15:42know for the the higher levels sometimes
15:44this question will be asked slightly
15:46differently. So like one example I
15:48usually ask for managers and staff and
15:51senior staff engineers is can you share
15:53an example of a conflict between
15:55different teams or departments that you
15:57helped uh to resolve. I'm curious from
16:00your perspective as we start to walk up
16:02this ladder in terms of leveling. Are
16:04there different veillances and things
16:06that uh candidates need to touch on?
16:08What would you say are like the more
16:10important things that start to show up
16:11at those most senior levels?
16:14>> So one thing is that that there is this
16:16dynamic between organizations and you
16:18can call it politics or you can that's
16:20kind of a dirty word but you can call
16:21whatever you want. There's some kind of
16:22dynamics between different
16:24organizations. So can you navigate
16:26those? Can you understand what's
16:27happening around you? why different
16:29organizations might have this motivation
16:31or that motivation and then be able to
16:33navigate that successfully. So sometimes
16:35there are these competing incentives
16:36that teams may have and so can you
16:38understand those incentives and then be
16:40able to find that win-win situation. And
16:42then the other thing is that in these
16:44situations I'm looking for leaders not
16:45just to come out the other side back
16:47kind of like in the status quo like back
16:49where we started uh like we resolved the
16:51conflict but we're sort of fundamentally
16:52in the same place. Maybe the conflict
16:54may arise again, but I'm looking for
16:56leaders to say, "Oh, this is a conflict
16:58about, you know, uh, product ownership
17:00and yes, we can resolve this one, but
17:02what about the general boundaries
17:04between the teams?" So, I want to I'm
17:05looking for those systemic solutions
17:07that leaders are able to bring in and
17:09then prevent the next similar kind of
17:11conflict from from happening. These
17:13leadership stories, sometimes they
17:15involve other people. So there's a you
17:16and there the team of course but
17:18sometimes they might involve your
17:19management chain their management chain
17:21or partners that you have or maybe even
17:23folks on your team senior engineers
17:24whatnot. So when you bring in the right
17:27people at the right time you don't bring
17:29them in too early wasting their time uh
17:31quickly escalating just because you
17:33can't resolve a conflict but you don't
17:34also wait knowing that sometimes you do
17:36need u management support in order to
17:38resolve a conflict.
17:40>> Yeah that's that's great and I love the
17:43emphasis on incentives as well. I think
17:45especially for leadership candidates,
17:48there's this expectation from
17:49interviewers that this person kind of
17:51has x-ray vision for the org structure
17:53in some sense and that they're able to
17:56bring some insights to the table about
17:58why this conflict arose and what does
18:00that mean for how they changed their
18:02response. Really strong candidates are
18:04able to give you the backstory and say
18:06here's why this team is acting this way.
18:08It sounds a little unusual, but if you
18:09understood that, then everything else
18:11makes sense. And then here's what I did
18:13as a response and it's going to differ
18:16than what it would do in the average
18:18situation where that didn't happen. Um,
18:20so really love uh to see insights from
18:23candidates and I think some of the
18:24things that you called out there around
18:25incentives are are really good for
18:28leadership candidates. Do you still
18:29recommend that same kind of 60% of time
18:32spent on action or do you want to see a
18:35different breakdown? These numbers are
18:37sort of arbitrary. I would say that yes,
18:39in general, of course, focus on actions.
18:41That's what we're evaluating you on. But
18:42I would also say that the context can
18:44sometimes get a little bit longer for
18:46like you said, I want to understand what
18:48the motivation of the other team was.
18:49And my my my warning there is that
18:52managers and senior leaders tend to like
18:53to talk. They that's what we do, right?
18:56sometimes as managers and so um yes I
18:58think that might need to expand some in
19:00order for the listener to understand the
19:01story but be very careful about how much
19:04context is added there because one of
19:06the things I'm assessing you on
19:07especially as a leader is do you tell me
19:09the important parts of the story because
19:11that's what you're going to be doing
19:12every day when you're talking to
19:13engineers when you're talking to to
19:14executives when you're talking to other
19:16teams you're going to be uh
19:19communicating and choosing the most
19:20important words in an efficient way so I
19:22need to see that efficient context
19:25>> uh let's keep going and I want to change
19:27um maybe about 45 degrees into a
19:30question that's still related to
19:32conflict but uh more about the
19:34day-to-day work and this one is a bit of
19:36a doozy. I I find this question is
19:38somewhat culturally loaded but uh
19:40usually you'll see a question like what
19:42was a situation where you didn't agree
19:44with your manager or your superior's
19:47decision and somewhat implicit in the
19:49question is like all right well how did
19:51you go ahead and make that known I have
19:53noticed that candidates on the east
19:55coast in New York for instance maybe
19:57they came from a finance background
19:59where disagree with your manager is just
20:01not something that people do oftenimes
20:04struggle with questions like this and
20:06frankly As an interviewer, I don't like
20:08questions where there is a bunch of
20:09cultural bias like that. They tend to
20:11not give as good a signal, but it's
20:13undoubtedly a question that gets asked
20:15uh quite frequently. Um what are
20:18companies getting at here? What what are
20:20they hoping to gain from candidates when
20:22asking this question and how does it
20:24differ from some of the things that we
20:25talked about already?
20:26Yeah, I mean definitely these west, you
20:30can call them west coast, Silicon
20:31Valley, whatever tech company culture is
20:33one where we think conflict creates
20:35better outcomes. And so companies are
20:37looking for whether or not you will
20:38speak up when you see problems, right?
20:40Saving the team and the company from
20:42making bad decisions. And in those
20:44cases, they want to see that you can do
20:45that respectfully and professionally.
20:47And I think that's one of the the the
20:49filters that you're getting on this
20:50question is if you're disagreeing with
20:52the manager, needs to be done in a
20:53respectful way. you as a as a as an
20:56engineer you sometimes there are choices
20:58when you need to push back against uh
21:01you know against a manager against a
21:02decision and sometimes when you need to
21:04just say you know what this is I'm just
21:05going to disagree and commit this is
21:06just what the team's going to do and so
21:08in that way I'm assessing your judgment
21:10so you tell me the story if I felt like
21:13uh you didn't properly justify the push
21:14back and the kind of tax that you put on
21:16the team by by bringing up this conflict
21:19and pursuing it then I I that's
21:20questions I question your judgment after
21:22that you want your engineer ers to be
21:24thought partners and not just executors,
21:27right? So, not just sort of automatons
21:29that take instructions. And so, we're
21:30looking to see if you're that kind of
21:32partner that can that can make the team
21:35better.
21:36>> How does that partnership come through?
21:38Like, can you give some examples of
21:40responses that candidates might give
21:41that really exemplify a thought partner
21:44versus an automaton?
21:46>> Yeah, great question. Um I think that
21:48there's situations where um maybe you're
21:51making a technical choice, right? And
21:52your manager has decided this is what
21:55the organization is going to do and then
21:57you want to take this this opportunity
21:58to say, you know what, I think this this
22:00technical choice has these drawbacks and
22:02you have to to present that. There could
22:04be uh like could be a hiring choice.
22:06Maybe you're participating in a hiring
22:07conversation and your manager really
22:09wants to hire this person or really
22:10doesn't want to hire this person and you
22:12disagree and then you need to advocate
22:13for that. Maybe there's a situation
22:15where um there's uh some kind of process
22:18question. So oftentimes engineers are in
22:21places where managers calling a lot of
22:23meetings and trying to get things done
22:24in that kind of collaborative way and
22:26maybe you as an engineer understand that
22:28you need to to change the culture of the
22:30team and be able to make it more shifted
22:32towards execution. So there's like a lot
22:34of opportunities that I think we have to
22:35disagree with our our management chain.
22:38>> A lot of those are signals of of trust
22:40in some sense when hiring managers are
22:42conducting behavioral interviews.
22:44They're looking to see, okay, was this
22:46person trusted by their leadership
22:47chain. And if you're getting brought
22:49into major decisions and and hiring
22:52decisions and you're pushing back, that
22:54usually means that, you know, they trust
22:56your your judgment and they also think
22:58that you're a good enough deliverer that
23:01uh you need to have a seat at the table
23:02for these things. I think this comes
23:04back to something that Austin has harped
23:05on before, which is that in some sense,
23:08the way that you become good at
23:10behavioral interviews is actually very
23:12similar to what it takes to become good
23:14at your job. And if you can think about
23:16those things that build trust and that
23:17enable you to access to to kind of
23:20higher level projects, uh those are the
23:22same things that you ideally are able to
23:23highlight uh in some of your behavioral
23:26responses. Now, you gave me some good
23:28examples of things that you probably,
23:30you know, might touch on or these are
23:31some um examples of of ways that uh you
23:34can you can touch on this positively.
23:36What are those stories that you should
23:38avoid? Like if somebody asks you this
23:40question, are there particular things
23:41that you shouldn't bring up?
23:44>> No, there are some things. So, I think
23:45if you're if you're say just airing
23:48grievances, I think this is not a good
23:50space for that. things like, "Hey, I got
23:52a bad performance review and I had to
23:53talk to my manager about it." Or, "I
23:54didn't get promoted and I really wanted
23:56to and I had to talk to my manager about
23:57it." I think these are these are
23:59questions these are the kinds of issues
24:01that it's hard for the person to assess
24:02whether who's making the right decision
24:04um whether it was you or your manager.
24:06And so, I think that that's probably not
24:08a great um story. Remember, I talked
24:09about times when you were right. I think
24:11this is the the ideally the kinds of
24:12conflicts that you're bringing up. I
24:14think on the other side, it's um you
24:16know, trivial disagreements. So, again,
24:18I brought up code formatting style.
24:20highlight that one as a as a it's funny,
24:21but I think that people sometimes bring
24:23it up as uh as a disagreement they have.
24:25This show shows that you're just you're
24:27petty, right, in the things that you you
24:28bring up and that's not helpful. We
24:30talked about avoiding um conflicts where
24:32you were wrong or uh maybe you just
24:34don't like the idea and then it's
24:37difficult. Maybe the there's some kind
24:38of product choice or something that your
24:40manager is making or maybe they made a
24:42choice about a tool or something and you
24:45just don't like it. You don't have a lot
24:46of objective reasoning. You just
24:48personal preference. That's not a great
24:49one. Right? Again, we can't assess your
24:51judgment via that kind of story. And if
24:54you had a very sort of emotional
24:57conflict with your manager, then I think
24:59that that could be a dangerous story to
25:01tell because sometimes we can detect
25:03that as as humans. We're listening to to
25:05the story and we know, oh, there's a lot
25:06of feelings that you have about the
25:08story. So you need to be careful either
25:09telling that story in in a in a sort of
25:12medium tone kind of way and one way to
25:14where you've processed those emotions or
25:16maybe picking a different story where
25:18that's not have as much of an emotional
25:19impact on you.
25:21>> Yeah. Don't pick up the the hot pan
25:23especially because a lot of people end
25:24up interviewing after they've had an
25:26experience like that. And so maybe this
25:28while fresh on your mind isn't
25:30necessarily the right thing to bring up
25:31in an interview in order to show off uh
25:34kind of your capabilities throughout
25:36your response. The interviewer is
25:39writing stuff down in their notebook.
25:41I'm curious from your perspective and
25:43everybody's different. All interviewers
25:45are going to write down different
25:46things, but like what are the main
25:48things that are being evaluated? What
25:50would you say are like the rubric uh
25:52that a interviewer might have for this
25:54question? So I think it's very similar
25:57to a general conflict question that we
25:58talked about earlier, right? I think the
26:00things that where it's different is and
26:03we didn't talk about this yet, which is
26:04that thinking can be one action, right?
26:07So I think when when you are involved in
26:09these deeper conflicts and where there
26:10might be power dynamics involved or even
26:13the cross team one like we talked about
26:14last time, this thought process
26:16revealing to me the thought process that
26:18you went through so that I can assess
26:19your judgment becomes an important
26:22important part of the rubric. But
26:24additionally, because there's this um
26:26respectful piece or this filter which is
26:28on top of it about disagreeing with your
26:30manager, then I want to see that you
26:32thought through timing. I want to see
26:34through that you had careful thinking
26:35about the channel that you used to to
26:37bring up this conflict, right? The tone
26:39that you you brought it up. Those are
26:41all important things. And um typically I
26:44I'm looking for whether you're well
26:45prepared. So t I would not go and and
26:47start a conflict with my manager,
26:48address a conflict with my manager. If I
26:50knew I was missing data for example, I
26:52would go collect that data first and
26:53then you know bring that to my to my
26:55manager, right? And I think that um
26:57acknowledging and being humble to
26:59understand that uh the manager has
27:01context that I don't have, right? That's
27:03part of their role is to to to acquire
27:05higher level context and then give it to
27:07me. And so if I'm asking questions,
27:09that's healthy, right? I want to see
27:10that the person again is seeking to
27:12understand the input. We talked about
27:14that before. And um you know, I I want
27:17to see I want to see if you were
27:18successful. Again, if you if you have a
27:20conflict with your manager, but you
27:21aren't able to convince them, maybe
27:23that's okay. Maybe maybe the manager was
27:24right, but it isn't a great look for you
27:26in the behavioral interview, it just it
27:28makes it difficult for me to assess that
27:30final piece, which is whether you're
27:31able to convince someone uh of your
27:34point of view. And I think that that
27:35kind of we got them to change their mind
27:37and commit to to your position. I really
27:39want to see that in the in the actions.
27:42>> Well, let's go ahead and move on from
27:44conflict. We talked about this uh for
27:46for a bit here. I want to go to another
27:49category of questions that are really
27:51common um in behavioral interviews and
27:54they're usually pretty open-ended. Uh
27:56one that's a classic right now and that
27:59seems to be asked amongst a variety of
28:01different companies is tell me about a
28:04project that you're most proud of. I
28:06think you know generally companies are
28:08trying to get signal on like why are you
28:09proud but also you know what what are
28:12you what are you bringing to the table?
28:14uh why do companies ask questions like
28:15this and then how do these differ in
28:18some sense from s like smaller questions
28:20like these conflict stories that we've
28:22been talking about earlier.
28:23>> Yeah, so this is a much broader question
28:25like you're talking about. It's really
28:26getting a sense of what the uh what over
28:29you your overall career has been like
28:31and what you have have accomplished as
28:33an engineer and so the the the
28:35interviewer can collect a lot of signal
28:36in a short period of time by listening
28:38to these stories. So for sure they're
28:40trying to get at your scope. So at what
28:41level do you operate? What do you what
28:43is it that you do? And to that scope
28:46question, they're trying to to get at
28:47where your ceiling is. So, what's the
28:49largest scope, largest amount of time,
28:52largest technical complexity, largest
28:53organizational complexity that you've
28:55operated at? And of course, if we're
28:57talking about a project um that you're
28:59really proud of, that means that you
29:00probably did well on this project. So,
29:02they're looking for this ownership, this
29:03endto-end ownership. Those are really
29:05big pieces. And I would say that while
29:07you focused on this this question, this
29:09is these kinds of questions about um
29:11projects, they might uh be really really
29:15common and there might be a bunch of
29:16them that that fit with this kind of
29:17format. So things like tell me about a a
29:19big ambitious project, tell me about a
29:21project that was very ambiguous, you
29:23know, tell me about your favorite
29:25project. So I think all of these things
29:26are trying to get at the same the same
29:28idea and they're getting at, you know,
29:29the motivation uh for how why you wanted
29:32to work on this project. they're getting
29:33at uh your connection to to business
29:36outcomes. So what are we what are we
29:37doing here? We're hiring engineers to
29:39use technology to deliver business
29:40outcomes, right? And so when I when I
29:42ask you about these these projects, I
29:43want to see that you're connected to
29:44that. Of course, problem solving skills,
29:46right? We always encounter these
29:47problems when we have projects that we
29:50work on. And then I mentioned ambiguity,
29:52and I think ambiguity is another big
29:53signal area that that an interviewer is
29:55listening to when they're hearing this
29:57these kinds of uh uh responses. They
29:59want to know are you able to take an
30:01ambiguous problem, break it down into
30:03smaller pieces and and execute it. The
30:05communication even, right? So, of
30:06course, inside of the story, there might
30:08be times when you communicate it. That's
30:09important. But I'm also by asking you
30:12this big open-ended question, I'm
30:13seeing, can you organize and tell me a
30:16well structured story that's interesting
30:17to listen to and that guides me as the
30:19listener, as the interviewer towards
30:21what's most important and what made you
30:23successful. Do you even know like what
30:25made you successful? Do you know what
30:27good planning and good execution looks
30:29like? And can you draw me a picture of
30:31of how you did that? Uh, you know,
30:33verbally and that is a big indicator of
30:35your of your communication skills,
30:36especially for senior candidates.
30:38>> You you brought up a bunch of things
30:40that end up being signals on the
30:42evaluation side like how you can deal
30:44with ambiguity, bias for action. This is
30:47very common. I think Uber has a a
30:49parallel to Amazon in this respect. And
30:52sometimes these questions are hard to
30:54just ask upfront, like tell me about a
30:56time where you showed bias for action.
30:59But on the other hand, they're usually
31:00pretty apparent when you go tell longer
31:03stories. And so those are chances for
31:05you to kind of showcase the
31:07characteristics that your interviewer
31:09wants uh you to get after. So candidates
31:13obviously need to be preparing major
31:15projects that they can talk through in
31:17their behavioral interviews. How would
31:19you say they ought to go about selecting
31:21a project? I often hear from from
31:23candidates that I've talked to, oh, I
31:25don't have anything webcale that I've
31:27worked on or my projects are boring and
31:29they're uninteresting. What would you
31:31say to them as kind of a an algorithm
31:34for them to work through in terms of
31:36finding the project that's going to be
31:37most relevant for this type of question?
31:39>> Yeah, I definitely see this with
31:40candidates who are going maybe from a
31:42nonfang or a non-mango company. are
31:44trying to to to get into a larger
31:46webscale business and they feel insecure
31:48about the kinds of projects they've had.
31:50And so what I tell them is look, we are
31:52hiring you to do honestly day-to-day
31:55work like to to take a project from
31:57beginning to end to identify some
31:58business needs and build some things.
32:00You've probably done that. You have
32:01probably identified some business needs
32:03and built some technology in order to
32:05achieve those business needs. And so
32:06don't be afraid to present the work that
32:08you did as being representative of you
32:11working through every stage of the
32:12software development life cycle. And so
32:14when you think about projects that you
32:16have and you want to see which is the
32:17right one, I think there's three
32:18dimensions that you optimize for. So one
32:21of them is impact. I think you want to
32:22choose a project that had meaningful
32:24business or or uh user outcomes. Another
32:27one is scope. But this is sort of what
32:29what we're talking about we're getting
32:30at, right? How do we is is the is the
32:32work at the scale that's appropriate for
32:34your level. the amount of time, the
32:36amount of technical complexity, the
32:37amount of people that you worked with
32:38and then again personal contribution,
32:39right? Similar to how we talked about
32:41conflict resolution, you need to be this
32:43primary driver or somebody who is deeply
32:45invested in this project and not sort of
32:47peripheral to this project. Um now I
32:49think the one other thing I would say is
32:52uh sometimes there you're given some
32:54sort of specific flavor to this question
32:56like we talked about a time when project
32:58was very ambiguous or or a time when you
33:00had very you know large project with you
33:03know with a customer external customer
33:04or something like that right so if
33:06you're given this sort of flavor then
33:08ideally you're able to to put that
33:10filter on top of your stories and then
33:12pick one that fits that that model as
33:14well. Okay. So I guess from the the
33:17candidate perspective, go and think
33:19about you know major projects that
33:21you've been through and then maybe rank
33:23them according to these three
33:24dimensions. Impact, scope, personal
33:27contribution and then try to find those
33:30that are really highly ranked on each of
33:32those dimensions. Is that a good
33:33strategy?
33:34>> I think it's a great strategy. Yeah.
33:36Yeah. So if you're a level three, level
33:37four, this is like a uh you know junior
33:39engineer, software development one,
33:41software developer two, that sort of
33:43thing. Maybe you know zero to 3, four
33:46years experience. Um then we're
33:48expecting that kind of story to be at
33:50the feature levels. It's like one to
33:52four weeks worth of work. Maybe you
33:54implemented it most of your of the way
33:55yourself. There was probably some
33:57guidance at some some experience you
33:58some point along the way. So an example
34:00might be that you I don't know built a
34:03profile settings page, right? um from
34:05design all the way to deployment,
34:06something like that. And if you are a
34:09senior engineer, like a level five
34:11engineer, then usually that's operating
34:13at the project level, maybe one month,
34:15maybe three months, something like that.
34:17Um there's probably some other people
34:18involved, maybe one or two other
34:19engineers that you're working with. And
34:21really, I'm looking for your
34:23contribution to be some sort of
34:24leadership pieces. So that's technical
34:26leadership and design, technical
34:28implementation. You're doing the hardest
34:29parts, right? Maybe you're coordinating
34:31with other cross functional partners
34:33like product management or design. Some
34:35examples there is like um I don't know
34:36you led some migration from a REST API
34:39endpoints to a graph graphql API for
34:42some mobile app or something like that.
34:43That would be a a project that requires
34:45some thinking and planning in advance
34:47and maybe there's a number of people
34:48involved to that one. And then as we
34:50sort of keep going right so senior staff
34:53level six I think I'm looking for a
34:56significant project. It's like six
34:58months maybe even 12 months. There could
35:00be multiple work streams, right? Um
35:02there could be some there's some goal
35:04attached some large goal attached to
35:05this uh this this effort almost you can
35:08call it an effort in that sense that
35:09have may have multiple project size
35:11pieces underneath it that level fives
35:13are working on. So here I'm looking for
35:15you that you drove vision right that you
35:17maybe created architecture that you
35:18coordinated with a lot of people. Um so
35:20maybe an example is something like um uh
35:23architected and led some implementation
35:26of real-time notification system or
35:28something right then and you serving I
35:29don't know millions of millions of users
35:30something like that I think that would
35:32be common for a level six and then level
35:34seven that principle level um this is
35:37some major initiative it's probably over
35:39a year long uh these are things like
35:42platform modernizations right and that
35:44enable lots of teams to do something
35:46maybe ship faster or improve their
35:48developer experience or implement some
35:50new technology, right? And so here I'm
35:52looking for for strategic influence. You
35:55you you set the direction for the whole
35:57organization, not just for the team. And
35:59that you unblocked those teams along the
36:01way and made decisions and pivots as as
36:04circumstances changed.
36:06>> I'm definitely noting there's like a
36:08time dimension to this that you know
36:10that as you rank up that there's
36:12expectation that you're working on
36:13things for longer periods. I guess this
36:15is a nice note for people who are job
36:17hopping that, you know, you do want to
36:19be able to maintain enough duration with
36:21a company to be able to uh put on your
36:23resume some of these accomplishments.
36:26But I also I've talked with candidates
36:28and they're in this dilemma. They
36:29basically say, "Hey, my most recent
36:32project I think very much meets the
36:34scope and complexity, but I'm not done
36:36with it yet. You know, we've still got
36:37three months. It hasn't been delivered.
36:39I worked on some stuff a year or two ago
36:41at another company that I have
36:43delivered, but it really really doesn't
36:45map to the the scope that we were
36:47talking about. How would you suggest for
36:50engineers to try to think about the the
36:52trade-offs here in choosing a story?
36:54>> Well, trade-offs is the right call
36:56because I I don't think there is a clear
36:58answer to the story like always pick
37:00this one, always pick that one. I think
37:01that the trade-offs you mentioned are
37:03recency and of course recency has an
37:05impact on scope and that's what you're
37:06calling out that older stories are often
37:08lower scope stories. Um but then if it
37:11is unfinished then that's going to
37:13affect my assessment of your ability to
37:16drive results. And so I would only
37:18choose the more recent story if a uh my
37:22older stories are significantly lower
37:24scope uh than the one that I could
37:27potentially tell now and b I have some
37:30sort of progress and so ideally there's
37:33some sort of like hey we have milestones
37:34and I can show that I'm delivering
37:36against the milestones or we're have
37:38some sort of goal KPI metric that we're
37:40working towards and I we are sort of
37:42progressing along that path. So, I think
37:44the story without any results for me to
37:47assess whether or not you made the right
37:49call or whether or not you're going, you
37:51know, barking up the right tree or not,
37:52I think that that's pretty hard. It's
37:54pretty hard for me to listen unless
37:56unless the the question is very specific
37:58onto some kind of action that you want
38:00to highlight in this more recent story.
38:02If it's just asking me about a a project
38:05that has no results and no measurable
38:07impact, I think it's difficult to to
38:09assess that kind of story as an
38:10interviewer.
38:11>> Yeah, I think it's a tough one. And
38:12you're right. I don't think there is
38:13like a firm answer. I think every time
38:15someone's asked me this, I've gone,
38:16well, let me think about this for a
38:18minute. But I think you're right to
38:20think about this more defensively. Like
38:22a lot of interviewers as they're
38:23assessing are going to be asking
38:25themselves, well, did this pan out? Was
38:27this actually a project where we showed
38:29significant impact or maybe this is
38:31going to go sideways when they actually
38:32get to the fun part where they deliver
38:34it to production. And as such, you need
38:36to be prepared to kind of defend against
38:38those issues. And so being able to speak
38:42to the milestones, being able to uh
38:44approach why you're confident this is
38:46going to show the results that you have
38:48um are going to be really critical if
38:50you choose that story. But it's always
38:52going to be a bit of a a play uh in
38:55deciding between what's going to be most
38:57effective. And it comes down to a point
39:00by-point decision. Um you know,
39:02somebody's old story might be better,
39:03somebody's new story might be
39:05inappropriate. It really just depends.
39:07But I like the guidelines that you gave
39:08here. So, we've got big meaty stories
39:11that people are talking about. You know,
39:12if you're at the staff level, you're
39:14talking about something that took an
39:15entire year. How should candidates think
39:18about actually delivering and presenting
39:20this? Because the worst case scenario is
39:23they start off by telling me about the
39:25nuances of C and all of the, you know,
39:28various lambdas that they wrote before
39:30they can actually get into the meat of
39:32the story. What's the key to delivering
39:35a big meaty project story?
39:37>> Right. Right? So, we talked about
39:38communication is being something that
39:40I'm assessing when I'm listening to
39:41these kinds of stories, right? I want to
39:43know that you know what was important
39:46inside of the inside of the work that
39:48you did. And so, if if especially if
39:50you're seeing your organization is going
39:52to be really critical. You can still use
39:53a STAR format or a Carl format in
39:55general, but after your context and
39:58situation setting time, it's ideally a
40:01case where you can give me a table of
40:03contents. And this is some list of the
40:06most important parts of what I'm going
40:08to be hearing when I'm listening to you
40:10tell me this story. You know, something
40:12like, hey, there was an investigation
40:14and design phase where I had to gather a
40:16lot of information from many teams,
40:17right? There is a driving alignment with
40:20stakeholders time where I had to work
40:21with my VP to to to secure resources.
40:24Then there were some like hard technical
40:25choices that I had to dive in with the
40:27team and solve on the networking side.
40:29And then I had to think about I don't
40:31know like some kind of careful roll out
40:32that that we did. I had to to organize
40:35the a careful roll out over time to
40:37ensure safety. So I think something like
40:39that gives me both a sense of what I'm
40:40going to hear like what the different
40:41parts are and also tells me what I'm
40:44going to learn about you as the as the
40:46candidate as you're talking through each
40:48one of these these subp parts if you
40:50will.
40:51>> Yeah. I think from from your
40:52perspective, are you trying to get from
40:56the interviewer some signal? Like when
40:57you give this table of contents, are you
40:59trying to get them to tell in some sense
41:01where they want you to spend your time
41:03or is the goal just to organize your
41:05presentation? Maybe it's both.
41:07>> I'm not sure about tells. Maybe I'd be
41:08interested to see what kind of tells you
41:10provide as an as an interviewer after
41:12after someone presents this kind of
41:14list. Um, I was thinking more like it
41:16helps to show that I'm organized. It
41:18also helps me stay organized as I'm
41:19telling the rest of the story. so
41:20frequently in these long stories, you're
41:22not just going to tell the story for 10
41:24minutes, right? The person's going to be
41:25interrupting you and asking you
41:27questions and sort of taking you down
41:28different rabbit holes. And honestly,
41:30your job as a as a as the candidate is
41:33to guide the interviewer towards what's
41:34most important. So sometimes you need to
41:36kind of like eject out of the out of the
41:37rabbit hole and you say, "Okay, I think
41:39I think we've talked about this, right?
41:40We're feeling pretty good here. Like
41:42maybe let's go and talk about that
41:43number three thing, right? That hard
41:44technical choices that we were going to
41:46that we're going to make. Should we talk
41:47about that?" Right? of guiding the
41:48interviewer back to that uh that to that
41:51list. And it it's not that that I
41:53provided the list in advance that
41:54enables me to do that. It's that I know
41:55what the list is, right? So I I have I
41:58know what's important for me to talk
41:59about and I can guide the person back.
42:01Um so the way I like to think about it
42:03is this interviewer is sort of looking
42:04at a really big mural on the wall of
42:07your project, but they only have like a
42:08small straw to look through and they
42:10have to sort of pick at these different
42:11parts. And so if you just leave them,
42:13you know, let them look around the
42:14picture, they have no idea what this
42:16mural is. and it could take them a very
42:17long time to ask the right specific
42:19questions. But if you say, "Hey, like,
42:20you know, there's a person over here and
42:22there's a lion over there and [laughter]
42:23then there's some aliens over here and
42:25you're like, "Okay, cool." Like, I know
42:26where the interesting parts to sort of
42:27point my little my little vision and my
42:30little view of this project and get some
42:32more information about it as as time
42:33goes on. It helps the interviewer know
42:35what's coming in the future. But I'm
42:37interested from you like what do you do
42:39you get some tells from interviewers as
42:41you present these table of contents? I
42:44at least in in my limited experience on
42:46the other side of the table as a
42:47candidate sometimes interviewers will
42:49say yeah you know I really want to hear
42:51about your alignment and then the the
42:53roll out. So uh you know they'll they'll
42:55tell me places that I can elide parts of
42:57the story. Uh they might also perk up
42:59and you might see you know visibly that
43:01they care more about specific areas. Um,
43:03so that might help you, but it does kind
43:06of come back to this problem that I
43:08think you partially addressed here,
43:09which is sometimes interviewers will
43:11rabbit hole you like and and may not
43:14actually be your fault on on going off
43:15into too much detail. The interviewer
43:18might have lost track of, you know,
43:20what's important in the story or or what
43:22you want to to get across. Do you have
43:24any strategies or suggestions for like
43:26leveling the conversation back or or
43:28bringing it to those themes that you
43:30want to get across
43:30>> in any behavioral interview question? It
43:32doesn't matter if it's a follow-up
43:33question or otherwise. You want to go
43:35through this three-step process. So the
43:36first is decode to understand what the
43:38question is really getting at. Then you
43:40want to select the right response. Then
43:41you want to deliver it, right? And so
43:42this decode part of the of the follow-up
43:45question is really important. So is this
43:47just a clarifying question like oh like
43:48tell me about what metrics you chose
43:50here, right? And this clarifying
43:52question, answer the question and you
43:53sort of move on with the rest of the
43:54rest of what you're discussing. But if
43:57it's if it's more uh it could be a
43:58digging kind of question like uh well uh
44:01did anyone have any conflicts around
44:03what you tried to do? Right? They're
44:04sort of they're sort of fishing for
44:05something. They're fishing in that space
44:07and so you need to to respond to that
44:10kind of prompt with a longer perhaps a
44:13longer response or more a deeply thought
44:14through response. So uh and in that case
44:17you wouldn't want to just quickly move
44:18on back to the back to the things that
44:20you're you're you're talking about.
44:21Obviously they're interested in
44:22assessing some signal in that area. So,
44:24every time you get a question, a
44:26follow-up question or a regular
44:27question, assess what is the person
44:28trying to get? What's the question
44:29behind the question? Which signal areas
44:32is this interviewer assessing? And then
44:33how can I give them a response that
44:35provides them that signal area?
44:37>> That is really insightful. And I I I'm
44:40not sure if all of the audience noticed
44:42that, but there was actually an
44:43inflection in Austin's voice as he asked
44:45that second question, which kind of
44:47implied that there was some judgment
44:48behind it. It's like, was that really or
44:51are you sure? And whenever you sense
44:53that judgment, that's usually an
44:55indication that you know you need to
44:57spend more time there because there's
44:58probably some doubts on the other side.
45:01So, u being able to distinguish between
45:03those two modes of is this just a detail
45:06or maybe an idle curiosity or is this
45:08actually going to impact kind of my
45:10assessment. Um that is tricky, but if
45:13you're listening carefully, you can
45:15usually hear it from your interview and
45:17it can help you out a lot. I'd love to
45:19get your impression on like what are the
45:21common things that interviewers tend to
45:23go into like deep dives additional
45:26questions on questions like this where
45:28do they tend to lead the conversation so
45:30that way candidates can be ready you
45:32know these are things that I'm likely to
45:34want to go into
45:35>> right so that brings up this meta point
45:37that if you you are likely to tell talk
45:39about some key projects so spending some
45:41time in advance identifying what you're
45:43going to say about each one of your key
45:44projects maybe three or four projects
45:46that you have is super valuable it's
45:47going to make you feel confident. It's
45:49going to make your your delivery really
45:50smooth. That's going to enable you to
45:52identify these pieces of the table of
45:53contents. And you should prepare some
45:56really common follow-up questions. And
45:58those follow-up questions are things
45:59like what would you do differently,
46:01right? I think interviewer may not have
46:03anything else to ask, but they can
46:04always ask you for some reflection,
46:06right? They might ask you what's the
46:07hardest part, you know, the hardest
46:08technical part or the hardest
46:09organizational part or whatever the
46:11project was about. Um, how did you
46:13measure success? That's a really common
46:15one. So, how did you know if you were
46:16done or how did you know that uh the
46:18project was s was working? Right. Um did
46:21you encounter any conflicts? I think
46:22that's really that's one's really common
46:24>> conflict. We love conflict.
46:25>> Yeah. Right. Right. And then you sort of
46:26go back to what we talked about earlier
46:27in structuring a conflict response. And
46:30then um there's oftentimes
46:31forward-looking questions like what
46:32would you do next on this project? It's
46:34like the project's done. You wrapped it
46:37up with your little results and
46:38learnings piece, but now what? You know
46:39what what are the next steps? And
46:40they're looking for some kind of
46:42strategic ownership again of of of
46:44whatever this is. the next step in the
46:45technical project, the next step in the
46:47product. Um, that's what they're looking
46:48for. So, those are really common
46:49questions that people ask.
46:51>> Yeah. And you can, I guess, see the uh
46:53recursiveness of a lot of these
46:55questions that they beget other
46:57questions that you can get into. So, um,
46:59I think in some sense there is some
47:01benefit to having connectedness amongst
47:04your stories. So that way when uh your
47:07interviewer goes into conflicts that are
47:09related to that project you just spoke
47:11about, you're able to give a more
47:13customized version rather than having to
47:15jump them out of context and give them a
47:17conflict that's completely unrelated
47:18where you have to go and tell them about
47:20another project itself. Um so think
47:22about some of these common questions and
47:24how they might actually pertain to just
47:26this question. Um because oftentimes
47:28that's going to be the fastest path to
47:30you delivering signal to your
47:31interviewer. Sometimes interviewers want
47:33you to tattle on yourself a little bit.
47:36The these are like not my favorite style
47:37of questions. I think uh in interviewer
47:39trading sometimes people refer to these
47:41as trapdo questions where you're
47:43basically giving a candidate a chance to
47:46hang themselves. And in some sense it's
47:48not a good idea to ask an interviewer
47:50because you know the easiest way to uh
47:52to avoid the trap door is just to never
47:54open it. Um, but these questions are
47:56also somewhat useful in general because
47:59they're getting at really important
48:01characteristics of how do you grow? How
48:04do you perceive failure? So, let me give
48:06an example that we can dive into.
48:08Austin, let's talk about tell me about a
48:11project where you failed. Is there a
48:13perfect response that a candidate should
48:15give here? Like, you know, some uh fancy
48:18response that I've never failed at a
48:20project before because [laughter] my my
48:21standards are too high or is it
48:23something else? Right? So if you never
48:25go even near the trapdo, then that's not
48:27good. And I think that in this modern
48:29cult tech culture, we expect failure. We
48:32expect you if you haven't been if you're
48:33not failing, you're not trying hard
48:34enough, right? Something like that or
48:36like we're this is the land of the pivot
48:37here in Silicon Valley. So we expect you
48:39to try something and then have to try
48:41something else. And and uh you know uh
48:43failing fast becomes this this mantra
48:45that we that we that we tell ourselves
48:47on the product side. So yeah, I really I
48:50it is not good for you to say something
48:52like, "Hey, I I I never fail. I've never
48:54failed in my life." I think a that
48:56either showcases that you have not been
48:57taking enough risks or b you're lying to
49:00me, right? And I think neither one of
49:01those are great looks for you as a
49:02candidate. But uh there there is a trap
49:05here, right, like you talked about. And
49:07so the candidate or the the interviewer
49:09is looking for uh you know, growth and
49:11self-awareness, right? So that your
49:13ability to reflect on things that you
49:14you you went through. And maybe it's
49:16they're also assessing perseverance,
49:17your ability to sort of get through
49:19something that might have been
49:20difficult. And of course something like
49:22how you make decisions, judgment, and
49:24then ownership and whether you push
49:25through and and carry things over the
49:27line for yourself. So I think that when
49:29we're choosing these questions or
49:31choosing these responses, um they want
49:34to see failure, some real failure, but
49:36not too much failure, right? Or maybe
49:38not the wrong kind of failure. And so
49:40there's some sort of Goldilock zone
49:42where maybe there's some significant
49:44failure that you have to learn from and
49:45maybe do differently, but it's also
49:47recoverable enough for you to show
49:49resilience. Um, so maybe again some
49:51examples might be, I don't know, helpful
49:53for for folks who are out there. Maybe
49:55you are designed something, right?
49:57Designed some solution for a system and
49:59it needed some refactoring once it got
50:01to production under a certain amount of
50:03load, right? U maybe you built a
50:06solution for the team and you ended up
50:08kind of doing the opposite like you
50:09overengineered it and then it became
50:11difficult to maintain. Um or if we were
50:13to think about um other dimensions like
50:15product dimensions maybe the feature
50:18that you built uh was requested by users
50:21but never ended up being used by them.
50:23Something like that. Or maybe uh you
50:25know you you took too long to build
50:27something and the business no longer
50:28wanted it or that had some kind of
50:30effect on the market. There could be um
50:32processoriented
50:34um sort of failures, right? So maybe you
50:37moved uh too fast and you created
50:38quality issues. That's a classic one. So
50:40the trade-off between speed and quality
50:41or maybe you maybe you move too slow,
50:44right? And then you missed some market
50:45opportunity. Another classic one is is
50:48uh planning planning failures. So you as
50:50an engineer, you're often asked to
50:52estimate how long things were going to
50:53take. Maybe you underestimated it,
50:55right? Maybe you didn't account for
50:56dependencies. Maybe you missed some some
50:58edge case. Of course, all this v varies
51:00by level like we've talked about in the
51:01past. You need to choose a failure which
51:03is commensurate with with your level.
51:05But I think the key part the part about
51:07not falling through the trap door is
51:08that you have some kind of hypothesis in
51:10the beginning of the story about why
51:12whatever choice you made was the right
51:14choice. So for example, if your failure
51:15is something like I didn't put in tests
51:17and then we had some bugs in production,
51:19then yes, you are assessing you're
51:21having some self self-reflection that's
51:23good. Um humility that's good. Maybe
51:24growth mindset maybe that's good too.
51:26But you're also showcasing poor judgment
51:28like yes of course you didn't put any
51:29test so you have these failures. But
51:31instead if you say something like well
51:33you know we we made this decisions
51:35really quickly in the beginning because
51:37you know I don't know time pressure from
51:38the CEO or something like this and then
51:40we ended up paying for it later. There's
51:41some of hypothesis in the beginning
51:43about about why uh you know why your
51:46approach would have or could have worked
51:48and uh then then in that case your
51:50judgment is not being questioned. I
51:52think you avoid sort of hanging yourself
51:54u you know on the rope that's provided
51:55to you by the interviewer.
51:57>> Yeah. I I like the um kind of like could
52:00a person at your level have anticipated
52:03this beforehand is a really good lint to
52:05take your story through and if as you're
52:07telling it you're going oh it's pretty
52:09obvious that this is not going to work
52:11then your interviewer is thinking the
52:12same thing. And so be really careful of
52:14those. But Austin, I noted through the
52:16examples that you were giving that often
52:18times you were really zoning in on
52:20places where there's trade-offs where
52:21there's like not a right or wrong answer
52:23that it's ultimately a a question of
52:25where we put that threshold and where we
52:27choose. Is that kind of the the key to
52:29responses here?
52:31>> Yeah, there could be different framings,
52:32right? And that's kind of what you're
52:33getting at is maybe there's some frames
52:34that that you can that we can apply and
52:36you can even back apply them, I think,
52:38in some ways. So maybe you didn't apply
52:40them at the time, but maybe they make
52:41sense in in in retrospect. So let's
52:43let's talk about how we could frame some
52:44of these mistakes in the past. Maybe our
52:46audience could also, you know, make some
52:48comments about like what these different
52:49framings are could could be. But the
52:51ones that that that I that come to mind
52:53when I think about them are speed over
52:54quality. I talked about that one, right?
52:56So sometimes you want high quality and
52:57then maybe it takes too long. Sometimes
52:58you want speed and maybe that's a
52:59quality trade-off there. Um sometimes
53:01there's uh the incorrect data. This is
53:03like the the research problem I brought
53:05up. This incorrect data. You have the
53:07wrong data. You made a decision based on
53:08data, but it was the wrong data. you
53:10know, user said they wanted this, but
53:11the revealed preference is different.
53:12They did something different in reality
53:14or maybe uh you know, we collected some
53:16some initial responses from uh you know,
53:19from our analytics, but that ended up
53:21being wrong at scale. Something like
53:22that. And then um sometimes it's just uh
53:25well, we did this last time, like this
53:26is what we this is what we've always
53:28done [laughter] and maybe that's worked
53:29in the past and that's fine. Sometimes
53:30we the shortcut for decisions is that we
53:33look to see what's what has been
53:34successful in the past and uh we have
53:37reason to believe that that'll be
53:38repeated but then it it it didn't work
53:40out this time. Um so those are all I
53:41think helpful framings. I can you come
53:43up with any other framings that might be
53:44helpful?
53:45>> Yeah I these are all good good
53:47trade-offs. I'd love to actually see
53:49what people drop into the comments. I
53:51mean the other ones that I can think of
53:52are really about kind of like what are
53:54the priorities or values that the
53:56organization have. um those are usually
53:58for higher level leadership kind of uh
54:00questions, but oftentimes there's not a
54:03correct answer there. Um and you know,
54:05usually two values are going to have
54:06trade-offs in the limit and they make
54:08for really interesting stories about why
54:11you uh you know, are operating with one
54:13set of values over another. It sounds
54:15like there is also a delivery component
54:17here. Like in as much as the trapoor is
54:20about you kind of admitting to something
54:22that your interviewer is obviously
54:24thinking is not going to work out. What
54:27would you propose as a like a structure
54:30for people in responding to a question
54:32like this? Do you have any like one two
54:34threes that we can use?
54:36>> Continuing to use a star or Carl format
54:37still makes the sense makes sense for
54:39this kinds of question. But um like we
54:41talked about you the context section of
54:42this situation task part needs to be
54:45sure to include what the believable
54:47hypothesis was that of why this could
54:49work out. So make sure that you land
54:51that really solidly in that in that
54:53introduction. Right? And then um often
54:55times since this is kind of like a uh
54:57it's failure that you didn't anticipate
54:59obviously if you anticipated the failure
55:01you would have done something different.
55:02So there must be some component in here
55:04in the action part about how you
55:05discovered what happened. And so that
55:07needs to be where does it where does a
55:09flip switch go from like oh I made a
55:11mistake and then there needs to be some
55:13active part of you handling the mistake
55:15right so hopefully the story includes
55:17you taking proactction proactive actions
55:20to correct that mistake or at least fix
55:23it next time whatever recover from
55:24whatever the failure was and and like I
55:26said do something different the next
55:28time and I think those are the kinds of
55:29things that that I'm that I'm I'm I'm
55:31looking for um and um you know
55:34especially that in that learning section
55:36that forward-looking part where you've
55:38been introspection about what you've
55:39learned personally or maybe what the
55:41company or the team has learned and then
55:43you're able to apply those learnings and
55:44then you tell me some really brief very
55:46very brief story about how you did the
55:48different differently next time. So if
55:50it was like you underestimated in in one
55:52project then you tell me like oh and the
55:54next time I like got more advice from
55:56senior engineers to understand what the
55:58scope of the problem might be and get
55:59some estimates and compared with some
56:00previous previous timelines and then you
56:03know my next timeline was better. So I
56:05think that kind of following up these
56:07mistakes and learnings questions, these
56:08trapoor questions always with, you know,
56:10what you did differently next time is a
56:12really strong move.
56:13>> The next category of question that I
56:15have in mind is a little bit
56:16interesting. Sometimes companies will
56:18notice something like, oh, we're not
56:20moving fast enough or we're not taking
56:21enough risk. And so they will transform
56:23those into questions that they ask for
56:25new employees as a means to try to bias
56:28the talent distribution so that they can
56:31get people who epitomize those things
56:33that they either don't do well or that
56:34they really want to do well in the
56:36future. So like one great example that
56:39we see pretty commonly being asked are
56:42give me an example of a calculated risk
56:44that you've taken where speed was
56:46critical. Um what would you what's your
56:49take on this question and how would you
56:51say that candidates ought to respond?
56:54>> Yeah, we keep covering these questions
56:55that embody these core Silicon Valley
56:58beliefs or these these ways that tech
56:59companies operate. This is the sort of
57:01move fast and break things question,
57:03right? How do I get business value
57:04really fast and and taking the right
57:07risks? And so, um yeah, of course, I'm
57:09they're assessing your prioritization.
57:10They're assessing your understanding of
57:11these kinds of trade-offs. They're
57:13assessing your understanding of the
57:14overall business uh context and making
57:17the right trade-off, right? Also, maybe
57:19there's a pressure component to this
57:20question. Perhaps there's a sort of
57:22speed piece, right? Maybe you had to
57:23make the decision under difficult
57:25circumstances. And so, um if you are,
57:28uh, you know, if you in this case, it's
57:30kind of different than the previous one
57:31about weaknesses where I want to see
57:33that you were right, you know, to move
57:34fast, right? If you if if the question
57:36is uh you know if you took some risk and
57:39you were wrong where speed was was not
57:41critical or where the the speed did the
57:43the bad something bad that that could
57:45have been avoided then that's not a
57:46great story to pick. So the risk needs
57:48to be something that's calculated right
57:50not not reckless to think about we we
57:52decided to cut this corner or that
57:54corner because XYZ and that was the
57:56right choice. Um and often times I want
57:58to see that the that you have mitigated
58:00this risk in some way. So we have baked
58:02in time for handling technical debt
58:04later or you know we did additional
58:07layers of testing or something like this
58:09in order to ensure that the that what I
58:10built was correct um or that you had
58:13some sort of phase roll out whatever
58:15whatever the mitigation strategies are
58:16for for moving fast. I want to see those
58:18in the you know in the in the story
58:20outcome.
58:21>> What are some example risks that you
58:23hear from candidates that you would say
58:25are gold standard or or you know maybe
58:27some of the better uh stories that
58:28you've heard? Yeah, I mean of course it
58:30varies by level, right? Um and so you
58:33want to choose one that's appropriate to
58:34your level like we've been talking
58:36about. Maybe maybe ideally you have some
58:38really great suite of automated tests,
58:40but perhaps you um don't have time to
58:42build that or um whatever don't have the
58:44resources and so you instead relied on
58:47some like passive manual testing. Maybe
58:49that's okay, right? Or maybe uh you know
58:52you decided to launch um some this would
58:55be more of like a junior person. I guess
58:56that's the idea here. and that maybe you
58:59uh decided to um you know build
59:01something simpler um than you originally
59:04intended or what the product maybe
59:05product manager might want to to have
59:07and you took the risk that the adoption
59:09would be poor because they didn't have
59:10all the features right um I think
59:13somebody who's uh more senior you know
59:16they might their their trade-off might
59:18be about architecture or something that
59:20may last longer right so maybe maybe you
59:22know that this architecture is not going
59:23to scale to uh you know web scale or
59:25whatever the the destination is that you
59:27want to get to, but for your small set
59:29of test users for the first few months,
59:30you're fine with it and you just want to
59:32get it out there. So, you made some sort
59:33of um you acquired some technical debt
59:35that you're going to pay down later. And
59:37then maybe for more senior folks, uh
59:40there's probably some risks around
59:43choosing the right technology. Maybe
59:45you're choosing maybe you chose legacy
59:48technology even though you because you
59:50knew you needed it to to work in a high
59:51quality way and be able to build it fast
59:53even if you knew that that would cause
59:54limitations later in terms of what the
59:56the product could achieve but you
59:58decided to to bias that or maybe do the
1:00:00o opposite. So maybe you chose some kind
1:00:02of emerging technology to capture uh the
1:00:05user market in some innovative way even
1:00:07though if you knew that maybe it doesn't
1:00:09work all you know as well or as smoothly
1:00:11or the developer experience is not as
1:00:12great as the more mature process right
1:00:15um so I think those are the kinds of
1:00:16risks that I see people people taking
1:00:20got it for people who are moving between
1:00:23kind of like a category of companies
1:00:25like big tech to startups or startups to
1:00:27big tech there's oftentimes a bunch of
1:00:29cultural baggage that comes. So like if
1:00:32I'm in big tech, everything that I'm
1:00:34doing seems like it's risk averse to
1:00:36someone who's working in a startup.
1:00:38Whereas in a startup, everything I do
1:00:40seems reckless to someone who's working
1:00:41in big tech. What's the appropriate way
1:00:44to like contextualize this so that
1:00:47candidates can give the right impression
1:00:49to their interviewer uh with respect to
1:00:51the stories they have?
1:00:52>> Yeah, this is a great question because
1:00:54this is this is frequently what you need
1:00:55to do. You use this word contextualize.
1:00:57This is frequently what you need to do
1:00:59on on any many stories if you're going
1:01:01from sort of one stage of company to to
1:01:03another stage of company. It's not
1:01:05always about exactly what you did. It's
1:01:06more about the thinking why you did that
1:01:09thing. So that's that's the repeatable
1:01:10part. The repeatable part is your
1:01:12thought process, your ability to gather
1:01:14data and make decisions based on on the
1:01:16business context, the technical
1:01:17decisions, the product needs, the the
1:01:19whatever data you acquired through
1:01:20tests. So those are the that that kind
1:01:23of um those those are what contextualize
1:01:25the the work for us and trying to figure
1:01:27out like whether or not you made the
1:01:29right call. So that's how I would I
1:01:31would um you know mitigate this this
1:01:33risk of making telling the story that
1:01:35might not fit with the the the culture
1:01:38of the of the company you're trying to
1:01:40to um to apply to is to add a healthy
1:01:43layer of why you made those choices and
1:01:45what your thinking was at these
1:01:47different phases.
1:01:48I like the emphasis on the the thought
1:01:50process because that in some sense is
1:01:52what interviewers are trying to unpack.
1:01:53So this is great. I'd love to just go
1:01:55into a question that's more common in
1:01:57staff and senior staff loops. Tell me
1:02:00about the hardest feedback that you've
1:02:02ever had to deliver. At these levels,
1:02:05companies are expecting that you're not
1:02:06just receiving feedback that you're
1:02:08giving it. They really expect their
1:02:10senior most IC's to in some sense be
1:02:13exemplars for the rest of the
1:02:14organization. And there's obviously a
1:02:16few angles to this question. It's like
1:02:17what constitutes hard or difficult
1:02:19feedback for you? What kind of feedback
1:02:20have you actually had to deliver in your
1:02:23experience and then how did you go about
1:02:25executing it? Um I'd love to understand
1:02:28from your side you know what is this
1:02:30question uh trying to get at and then
1:02:32you know what are the key things that
1:02:34candidates should be thinking through in
1:02:36terms of how they can organize their own
1:02:38stories.
1:02:40>> Yeah. providing feedback to others,
1:02:41right? Helping other people grow, not
1:02:43just not just yourself and and your own
1:02:45responsibilities, but like what are the
1:02:48the whether it's your people that report
1:02:50to you or maybe it's like peers, right?
1:02:52The people who are on other teams, like
1:02:54how are you making these people grow?
1:02:55And I think that that there that brings
1:02:57in a lot of variation. So sometimes
1:02:58there's a power dynamic that you have
1:03:00where you're telling some story about
1:03:01your reports and sometimes you are
1:03:03influencing without any kind of formal
1:03:05power, right? And so those are very sort
1:03:07of different stories I get at different
1:03:08signals. Um, but I would think that
1:03:10companies are, like you said, trying to
1:03:13assess what you think is hard. Maybe the
1:03:15hard what you think is hard reveals
1:03:17something about your scope, about your
1:03:18maturity. Also, if it's hard, then that
1:03:21means that you probably need to navigate
1:03:23some kind of emotionally charged
1:03:25conversation. And that's really
1:03:26important. Um, and then they're probably
1:03:29also assessing whether you can, like my
1:03:31old manager used to say, like land the
1:03:32plane. you know, how can you land this
1:03:34feedback in a way that that makes the
1:03:36the person willing to change and can you
1:03:38drive change in someone else, especially
1:03:40if you don't have power over them. So,
1:03:42that's a big thing that they're going to
1:03:43be assessing in in a question like um
1:03:46like this one. So, yeah, you talked
1:03:47about this one being more for senior
1:03:50leaders or or leaders of some kind.
1:03:52There could be interesting stories that
1:03:53someone could come up with for this one.
1:03:55So maybe for someone who is uh you know
1:03:58newer on the leadership side, it could
1:04:00be telling someone that their task
1:04:02performance is not what's expected of
1:04:03them, right? That could be a hard
1:04:04conversation, right? Or maybe asking
1:04:06somebody to redo something. Maybe
1:04:08there's giving feedback to your manager.
1:04:09Like that could be something that could
1:04:11be challenging or difficult to do u as
1:04:13if you're early in the in the you know
1:04:15in your in your career. Um and maybe
1:04:18anything that has to do with you know
1:04:19performance management. We kind of
1:04:20touched on that, right? Or maybe
1:04:22someone's not going to get promoted.
1:04:23that could be an examples of of things
1:04:24that early career folks could could find
1:04:26difficult. Um, so if you're more senior,
1:04:28I think that you need to choose
1:04:29something that might be a little bit
1:04:30more complex than that. So maybe if
1:04:33you're a level seven or or like senior
1:04:35manager or director, then um I find I
1:04:39find things difficult to deliver things
1:04:41like hey um there's some kind of
1:04:43behavior happening on your team maybe
1:04:45off the team that is suboptimal. You
1:04:47know, maybe it doesn't fit with some
1:04:48kind of like expectation. And I can't
1:04:50point to say like this expectation is is
1:04:51is not being met. But it's uh the way
1:04:54that you know the way that you look at
1:04:56people in meetings or something like
1:04:57[laughter] that, right? Something's
1:04:58about culture, right? It's not
1:04:59measurable outcome. I can't say like
1:05:00yes, you deliver the code on time or you
1:05:02did not, but it's something about the
1:05:04way that you're working. And often times
1:05:05at this this kind of level, these are
1:05:07the things that start to matter, right?
1:05:08Is these these more softer skills. Um
1:05:11maybe it's it's letting go somebody who
1:05:13is trying hard. So I think this this
1:05:15kind of example of somebody that's
1:05:16struggling but is not not putting in the
1:05:18effort. I think that's an easier
1:05:19conversation than someone who, wow, this
1:05:21person's really given it everything they
1:05:23have and it's just not working for them.
1:05:25Um, then then this is where the power
1:05:28parts come in, right? So, it's like one
1:05:29thing to have a hard conversation with
1:05:30someone that reports to you, that's a
1:05:32little easier for an experienced leader.
1:05:33But when you're having a conversation
1:05:35with someone who you don't have any
1:05:36reporting relationship with, then now
1:05:38you're really testing the quality of
1:05:40your u your personal relationship, the
1:05:42quality of your ability to land that
1:05:43feedback. uh or like you're maybe you're
1:05:45providing feedback, you know, way up the
1:05:47chain like skip level, skip skip level,
1:05:49those sorts of things. Uh can you drive
1:05:51change at that level? Um so these are
1:05:53these are like the the stakes of course
1:05:54increase as as the level expectations
1:05:57increase.
1:05:58>> Well Austin, this has been a lot of fun
1:06:00and and super informative and I hope
1:06:02that we partly succeeded helping you all
1:06:04in the audience understand a little bit
1:06:06about how interviewers are looking at
1:06:08your responses to these common
1:06:10questions. If you'd like to learn more
1:06:12about other common questions, [music]
1:06:14feel free to check out our community
1:06:15questions section on the Hello Interview
1:06:17website. I'll include a link in the
1:06:19description. And if you haven't already,
1:06:22go and check out Austin Substack. He has
1:06:23a lot of great writing about the thought
1:06:25process of interviewers and then also
1:06:27those steps that you'll have uh to
1:06:29prepare your stories and get ready to
1:06:32crush your interviews. I think he uh has
1:06:34definitely put more thought uh around
1:06:36this than basically anyone in the world.
1:06:38It's a phenomenal resource for all
1:06:40[music] things behavioral. So, I uh wish
1:06:42you all the best and hope that everyone
1:06:44has a good one. Thanks again, Austin.
1:06:46Thank you. Great to be here.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Behavioral Interview: Common Questions Broken Down by Ex-Meta & Amazon Senior Managers by Hello Interview, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 14,572 words across 2,102 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.