Engineering Manager’s Questions

Technical Questions

1. How do you approach breaking down a complex technical program into manageable components?

Great Response: "I start by understanding the overall vision and success criteria for the program. Then I map out dependencies, critical paths, and technical constraints through stakeholder interviews and system analysis. I identify logical work streams that can be executed in parallel where possible. For each component, I establish clear deliverables, owners, and milestones to track progress. I've found that visualizing this breakdown using tools like dependency graphs helps team members understand how their work fits into the bigger picture. I also build in integration points to validate that components work together as expected. Throughout the process, I maintain a risk register and regularly reassess the breakdown as we learn more."

Mediocre Response: "I would work with the engineering team to break down the project into epics and stories based on functionality. We'd assign owners to each component and track progress in our project management tool. I'd make sure we have regular check-ins to ensure everything is on track and make adjustments as needed. It's important to have clear documentation for each component so everyone knows what they're responsible for."

Poor Response: "I typically follow the breakdown structure that's provided in our project management methodology. I create work packages based on the team structure we have, so each team gets their own set of tasks. Then I track progress against milestones in our project tracking tool. If any issues come up, I escalate them to the appropriate manager to help resolve. I focus on keeping the timeline on track and making sure deliverables are met."

2. How do you manage technical risks in a program?

Great Response: "I implement a proactive risk management framework with three key components. First, identification: I conduct risk workshops with technical stakeholders early and regularly, encourage blameless reporting of potential issues, and analyze similar past projects for patterns. Second, assessment: I evaluate each risk by likelihood, impact, and proximity, creating a prioritized heat map. Third, mitigation: I develop specific action plans for high-priority risks with clear owners and deadlines. For technical risks specifically, I often request proof-of-concepts or spikes to validate assumptions before full implementation. I also maintain contingency plans for critical path items and systematically review risks weekly, adjusting our approach as new information emerges."

Mediocre Response: "I create a risk register at the beginning of the project and update it during our regular meetings. Team members can add risks they identify, and we rate them based on probability and impact. For the highest risks, we develop mitigation plans and assign owners. During status updates, we review the top risks and track progress on mitigations. If a risk becomes an issue, we implement our contingency plan."

Poor Response: "I maintain a risk log in our project management tool where anyone can add risks they see. We review these during our status meetings and address the most urgent ones. Most technical risks can be handled by adding buffer time to the schedule or having senior engineers available to help if problems arise. I find that many potential risks don't actually materialize, so it's important not to over-engineer solutions to problems we may never face."

3. How do you handle the trade-off between speed and quality in technical programs?

Great Response: "I approach this as a negotiable spectrum rather than a binary choice, with deliberate decisions based on context. First, I work with stakeholders to establish shared understanding of quality requirements for different features—distinguishing between mission-critical components needing rigorous quality controls and areas where rapid iteration is more valuable. I implement a tiered testing strategy: comprehensive test coverage for core functionality versus lighter testing for experimental features. I advocate for quality enablement through automation, shared code standards, and architectural decisions that support both speed and quality. When compressed timelines are necessary, I negotiate scope reduction rather than compromising quality standards for included features. Throughout, I communicate transparently about trade-off decisions and their implications, creating feedback loops to assess impact and adjust accordingly."

Mediocre Response: "It's important to find a balance between speed and quality. I work with the team to define quality standards up front and identify which features need more rigorous testing. We use automated testing where possible to speed up the quality assurance process. If we're facing time pressure, I'll work with stakeholders to prioritize features and potentially move less critical items to a future release. We track bugs and quality issues to make sure they don't accumulate over time."

Poor Response: "In most cases, meeting deadlines is the primary business driver, so I focus on delivering on time. Quality issues can usually be addressed in subsequent releases if they're not blocking. I rely on our QA team to catch major issues before release, and we maintain a bug backlog for minor problems. I've found that getting features in front of users quickly is usually more valuable than perfect code quality. If quality becomes a problem, we can always schedule a cleanup sprint later."

4. What metrics do you use to measure the success of a technical program?

Great Response: "I employ a balanced scorecard approach with metrics across four dimensions. For delivery effectiveness: velocity stability, sprint predictability, and milestone achievement rate. For product quality: defect density, mean time between failures, and test coverage. For technical health: architectural debt metrics, time spent on maintenance versus new development, and build/deployment frequency. For business impact: user adoption, performance against SLAs, and specific business KPIs relevant to program goals. I establish baseline measurements early, set improvement targets, and review metrics in weekly team meetings and monthly stakeholder reviews. Importantly, I treat metrics as conversation starters rather than absolute measures of success, constantly evaluating if they're driving the right behaviors and adjusting them when they don't align with program objectives."

Mediocre Response: "I track both project metrics and product metrics. For project health, I use on-time delivery, budget adherence, and scope completion. For product quality, I look at defect counts, test coverage, and performance against requirements. I report these in our regular status updates so stakeholders can see how we're progressing. If we're falling behind on any metrics, we can take corrective action to get back on track."

Poor Response: "The most important metrics are schedule adherence and feature completion since those are what stakeholders care about most. I track these in our project management tool and report on percent complete in status meetings. For quality, I monitor the number of open bugs and their severity levels. These metrics give a good overview of project health and tell us if we need to add resources or adjust our timeline."

5. How do you manage dependencies between different teams or components in a complex program?

Great Response: "I implement a multi-layered dependency management approach. At the planning level, I facilitate cross-team architecture and design sessions to identify dependencies early, document them clearly, and establish interface contracts. Operationally, I maintain a visual dependency map—updated weekly—showing critical paths and integration points with owners and dates. For governance, I institute a tiered escalation process: first, direct team-to-team synchronization; second, weekly dependency review meetings; and third, escalation paths for blocked items. I've found that establishing integration milestones with demo requirements forces early discovery of misalignments. When dependencies involve external teams, I create formal service level agreements with clear deliverables and dates. Throughout, I focus on creating transparency around dependencies and empowering teams to proactively manage their interconnections rather than relying solely on top-down coordination."

Mediocre Response: "I map out the dependencies between teams and components at the beginning of the project and track them in our project management tool. We review dependencies during our weekly cross-team meetings to ensure everyone is aware of what they need from others and what others need from them. I create buffer time in the schedule for critical dependencies to account for potential delays. If a dependency is at risk, I facilitate conversations between the teams involved to resolve any issues."

Poor Response: "I ask each team to identify their dependencies and document them in our tracking system. We discuss dependencies during our status meetings, and I follow up on any that are at risk of missing their due dates. The engineering managers are responsible for making sure their teams deliver what's needed by other teams on time. If there are delays, I organize meetings between the affected teams to work out new timelines."

6. How do you approach technical debt in the context of program management?

Great Response: "I treat technical debt as a strategic portfolio to be managed rather than a binary problem to solve. First, I work with engineers to establish a taxonomy of technical debt—distinguishing between architectural limitations, quality issues, and maintenance costs—and create visibility through systematic documentation and measurement. I institute regular technical debt reviews where we assess items based on impact to velocity, system reliability, and security risk. For prioritization, I use a framework that weighs remediation cost against business impact, and advocate for allocating a consistent percentage of each release (typically 15-20%) to debt reduction. I've found success embedding technical debt considerations directly into our planning process, with 'debt scores' for potential implementation approaches and explicit discussions of debt tradeoffs for deadline-driven features. Most importantly, I focus on changing the conversation from 'when can we fix all our debt?' to 'how do we continuously manage our technical investments?'"

Mediocre Response: "Technical debt needs to be balanced with new feature development. I work with the tech leads to identify and catalog significant technical debt items. We prioritize addressing debt that's causing immediate problems or slowing down development. I try to allocate some capacity in each sprint for technical debt reduction and schedule dedicated maintenance sprints periodically. When planning new work, we discuss potential technical debt implications so we make informed decisions."

Poor Response: "I maintain a backlog of technical debt items reported by the team. When we have extra capacity or between major releases, we tackle the highest priority items. Most of the time, delivery deadlines take precedence, but I make sure serious issues that affect performance or reliability get addressed. I rely on the engineering team to determine which technical debt items are most important to fix."

7. How do you ensure security and compliance requirements are met throughout a technical program?

Great Response: "I implement security and compliance as integral system properties rather than bolt-on features. At program initiation, I partner with security and compliance experts to create a comprehensive requirements matrix mapped to specific deliverables and validation criteria. I institute a 'shift-left' approach with three key practices: First, security architects participate in early design reviews with explicit sign-off gates. Second, we implement automated compliance checks in our CI/CD pipeline that flag violations before code reaches production. Third, we conduct regular threat modeling sessions throughout development. For governance, I maintain a traceability matrix linking requirements to implementation details and test cases, reviewed monthly with security stakeholders. I've found that embedding security champions within development teams creates daily awareness of security practices. For third-party components, I implement a formal evaluation process with security review. Finally, I schedule periodic penetration tests and compliance audits with sufficient time to address findings before release deadlines."

Mediocre Response: "I involve our security and compliance teams early in the planning process to understand requirements. We include security stories in our backlog and make sure they're prioritized appropriately. I schedule security reviews at key milestones and make sure any issues are addressed before moving forward. We perform security testing alongside our regular testing process and document how we've met each compliance requirement. I maintain regular communication with the security team throughout the project to ensure we're aligned."

Poor Response: "I schedule a security review with our security team once the design is complete to identify any issues. We add security requirements to our backlog based on their feedback and implement them along with other features. Toward the end of the development cycle, we have the security team perform penetration testing and address any critical findings before release. For compliance, we follow the company's standard checklist and review it before launch to ensure we've met all requirements."

8. How do you approach capacity planning and resource allocation for technical programs?

Great Response: "I approach capacity planning as both a science and an art, blending quantitative analysis with team dynamics understanding. I start by creating a detailed skills matrix mapping program requirements against team capabilities, identifying both strengths and gaps. For estimation, I combine historical velocity data with bottom-up engineering estimates, but apply different confidence factors based on work type—higher for familiar tasks, lower for novel work. I implement rolling-wave planning: detailed for near-term work, progressively less granular for future quarters. For allocation, I prioritize team continuity and context over pure utilization, maintaining at least 70% dedicated time for core team members rather than fragmenting across too many initiatives. I've developed a capacity risk assessment that accounts for planned leave, training time, support obligations, and historical interruption patterns. I also maintain a flexible staffing pool of approximately 15% that can be deployed to address bottlenecks. Throughout, I collaborate closely with engineering managers to understand team member growth goals and incorporate skill development opportunities into assignments."

Mediocre Response: "I work with engineering managers to understand team capacity and skill sets. We estimate the effort required for different components of the program and map that against available resources. I try to account for things like meetings, support work, and time off when calculating actual development capacity. If we identify resource gaps, I work with management to either adjust the scope, timeline, or secure additional resources. Throughout the program, I monitor team workload and make adjustments if anyone becomes overloaded or if priorities shift."

Poor Response: "I gather estimates from the engineering teams for each feature and create a resource plan based on those estimates. I track actual versus estimated time to identify if we're falling behind schedule. If teams are over capacity, I look for ways to simplify requirements or extend deadlines. I rely on engineering managers to manage the day-to-day allocation of their team members and raise any concerns about capacity constraints."

9. How do you manage technical escalations and resolve conflicts between teams?

Great Response: "I've developed a structured approach to technical escalations with clear engagement rules. First, I establish a tiered escalation framework at program start, distinguishing between technical disagreements, resource conflicts, and priority conflicts, each with appropriate resolution forums. For technical disagreements, I facilitate structured decision-making sessions using weighted criteria matrices to objectively evaluate options against program goals. I maintain decision logs documenting the context, alternatives considered, and rationale. When conflicts arise between teams, I first ensure the conflict is centered on legitimate technical concerns rather than team dynamics or communication issues. I create space for honest technical debate while keeping discussions evidence-based and focused on user and business impact. For persistent conflicts, I use a RACI clarification exercise to identify decision ownership confusion. Throughout escalations, I remain neutral on technical specifics while directing the resolution process and ensuring psychological safety for all participants. The most important principle I follow is maintaining steady progress—setting timeboxes for decisions and implementing reversible decisions to prevent analysis paralysis."

Mediocre Response: "When technical escalations occur, I first make sure I understand the issue from all perspectives. I bring the relevant parties together to discuss the problem and try to reach consensus. I focus on the data and technical merits rather than personalities. If teams can't agree, I help them understand the trade-offs of different approaches and facilitate a decision based on our program priorities. I document decisions and their rationale so we don't revisit the same issues repeatedly. For conflicts between teams, I try to identify the root cause and address it directly, whether it's miscommunication, misaligned incentives, or resource constraints."

Poor Response: "I handle escalations by scheduling meetings with the involved parties to discuss the issue. I let everyone present their perspective and try to find middle ground. If agreement can't be reached, I ask the senior technical lead or engineering manager to make the final call. The most important thing is to resolve the issue quickly so we can continue making progress. I follow up to make sure the decision is implemented and that everyone is moving forward together."

10. How do you integrate user feedback and product requirements into technical program planning?

Great Response: "I implement a continuous feedback integration system with four key components. First, structured intake: we categorize feedback across multiple channels (support tickets, usage analytics, direct interviews, beta testing) using a consistent taxonomy for comparison. Second, synthesis: monthly cross-functional working sessions combine quantitative trends with qualitative insights to identify patterns. Third, prioritization: we use a weighted scoring model incorporating business value, technical feasibility, and strategic alignment; importantly, we make trade-off decisions transparent to all stakeholders. Fourth, validation: before full implementation, we test adjusted requirements with representative users, often through prototypes or A/B tests. Throughout, I maintain bidirectional communication—both pushing updates to users on how their feedback influenced the roadmap and pulling in feedback at each development stage through embedded customer proxies on the team. The most effective practice I've implemented is regular 'friction logs' where engineers directly observe users encountering pain points, creating powerful motivation to address real needs."

Mediocre Response: "I work closely with product managers to understand user needs and priorities. We conduct regular review sessions to look at user feedback and determine which items should be incorporated into our roadmap. I make sure the engineering team understands the 'why' behind requirements so they can make informed technical decisions. When planning releases, we balance new feature development with improvements based on user feedback. We validate our approach through user testing before full implementation when possible."

Poor Response: "The product team collects user feedback and translates it into requirements that they provide to the engineering team. We review these requirements during our planning sessions and incorporate them into our backlog based on priority. If there are technical constraints that make certain requirements difficult to implement, I communicate those back to the product team so they can adjust expectations. We focus on delivering what's in the approved requirements document."

Behavioral/Cultural Fit Questions

1. Describe a situation where you had to navigate competing priorities from different stakeholders. How did you handle it?

Great Response: "On a recent infrastructure modernization program, I faced competing priorities between our security team, who wanted comprehensive security enhancements, our product teams needing platform stability for an upcoming release, and our CTO's mandate to reduce cloud costs by 30%. Rather than picking winners, I facilitated a structured trade-off analysis workshop where each stakeholder articulated their success criteria and constraints. We collectively identified that database infrastructure represented 60% of our cloud costs while being central to both security concerns and stability needs. I proposed a phased approach: first implementing database optimizations that simultaneously improved security and reduced costs, followed by a platform stability freeze during product release, and finally completing the remaining security enhancements. I created a visual roadmap showing how each stakeholder's priorities were addressed over time, with clear metrics for each phase. When one product team pushed back on timing, I negotiated specific exceptions rather than compromising the overall approach. This led to successfully reducing costs by 35%, implementing all critical security measures, and maintaining platform stability during the product launch window."

Mediocre Response: "In my last project, I had the engineering team wanting to rebuild a component from scratch, the product team pushing for new features, and executive stakeholders concerned about meeting quarterly goals. I organized meetings with each group to understand their perspectives and priorities. Then I created a proposal that included some quick wins for new features, a phased approach to rebuilding the problematic component, and a timeline that aligned with quarterly objectives. I presented this to all stakeholders and got their buy-in. There were some compromises, but everyone understood why the approach made sense for the overall success of the project."

Poor Response: "I had a situation where marketing wanted new features, engineering wanted to address technical debt, and my manager was focused on meeting the release date. I collected all the requirements and evaluated them against our timeline. Since the release date was the most important constraint, I prioritized the work to ensure we would meet it, including the most critical new features requested by marketing. I had to push back on engineering's technical debt concerns and explained we could address those in a future release after meeting our current commitments."

2. Tell me about a time when a program you were managing encountered a significant unexpected challenge. How did you respond?

Great Response: "During a mission-critical payment system modernization, we discovered three weeks before launch that our third-party fraud detection integration had fundamental performance issues—90th percentile response times of 3 seconds versus our 200ms requirement—that hadn't surfaced in testing. Rather than immediately pushing for a deadline extension, I implemented a structured response: First, I assembled a cross-functional SWAT team including our engineers, the vendor's technical leads, and performance specialists. We established a war room with daily standups and clear success metrics. Second, I created a tiered mitigation strategy with parallel workstreams: (A) immediate optimization within existing constraints, (B) architectural modifications requiring moderate changes, and (C) a fallback solution using our legacy system with enhanced monitoring. Third, I developed transparent communication templates for different stakeholders—executives received daily impact assessments and decision points, while technical teams got detailed progress metrics. The team identified that the performance issues stemmed from unnecessary sequential API calls and implemented a batched approach that brought response times down to 180ms. We launched just one week late, and I subsequently established a performance testing framework that simulates production-level load much earlier in the integration cycle, which has prevented similar issues in three subsequent launches."

Mediocre Response: "In my previous role, we discovered a major security vulnerability in a core component two weeks before launch. I immediately informed all stakeholders about the issue and its potential impact. I organized a focused team to assess the vulnerability and develop a fix. We had to reprioritize work and delay some non-critical features to address the security issue. I held daily check-ins to monitor progress and updated stakeholders regularly. We developed and tested a fix, and although we had to delay the launch by a week, we released with the security issue resolved. Afterward, I worked with the team to implement better security testing earlier in our development process."

Poor Response: "We were implementing a new CRM system when we discovered that it couldn't integrate with our existing customer database as the vendor had promised. I immediately escalated the issue to my manager and the vendor's account team. We had several meetings to discuss options, and ultimately decided to modify our requirements to work within the constraints of the system. I revised the project timeline to account for the additional work needed and communicated the delay to stakeholders. We had to simplify some features, but we were able to launch the system with the core functionality intact."

3. How do you build and maintain relationships with engineering teams?

Great Response: "I build engineering relationships on a foundation of technical credibility, operational support, and genuine respect for the craft. First, I invest time upfront understanding each team's technical environment and challenges—I shadow engineers, review architecture diagrams, and learn their technical vocabulary, not to become an expert but to demonstrate respect for their domain. Second, I establish trust through consistent behaviors: protecting focused development time by buffering interruptions, making trade-off decisions transparent, and always providing context for why work is valuable. Third, I create formal and informal feedback loops—regular retrospectives where I actively listen to pain points, but also casual coffee chats to understand career aspirations and interests. When engineering flags issues, I take immediate action on what I can control and provide honest updates on what I cannot. One practice that's been particularly effective is my 'engineering advocacy' approach—I regularly highlight engineering achievements and innovations to business stakeholders, creating visibility for important work that might otherwise go unrecognized. Throughout, I view my role as enabling engineering excellence rather than simply extracting deliverables."

Mediocre Response: "I believe in establishing open communication with engineering teams. I take time to understand their work style and preferences, and adapt my approach accordingly. I make sure to involve engineers early in planning discussions so they can provide input on technical feasibility and approach. I respect their expertise and listen to their concerns. I also try to shield them from unnecessary meetings and interruptions so they can focus on their work. Regular one-on-ones with tech leads help me stay connected and address any issues before they become problems. When things go well, I make sure to recognize the team's contributions and celebrate successes."

Poor Response: "I maintain regular communication with engineering teams through our established channels like stand-ups and status meetings. I clearly document requirements and expectations so engineers know what they need to deliver. I'm available to answer questions and help resolve any blockers they encounter. I respect their time by keeping meetings focused and on-topic. I also make sure to thank them for their hard work and acknowledge when they meet important milestones."

4. Describe your approach to mentoring and developing junior team members.

Great Response: "I approach mentoring as a personalized development partnership rather than a one-size-fits-all process. I begin by understanding each person's career aspirations, learning style, and current skill gaps through structured assessment and candid conversations. Then I create individualized development plans with three components: skill-building opportunities embedded in actual program work, structured learning resources tailored to their style, and regular reflection sessions. For hands-on development, I use a progressive responsibility model—I identify program components that stretch their abilities while being bounded enough to minimize business risk, then implement appropriate scaffolding (from pair working to structured check-ins) based on their confidence level. I've found that contextual learning sticks best, so I create 'teaching moments' by involving juniors in complex situations, then debriefing the experience and connecting it to broader principles. I also establish cross-mentoring relationships so junior members learn different perspectives and approaches. Throughout, I balance pushing people outside their comfort zones with creating psychological safety to experiment and sometimes fail. My most successful mentoring relationships have evolved into two-way learning partnerships where I gain fresh perspectives while helping others grow."

Mediocre Response: "I believe in providing opportunities for junior team members to grow through a mix of guidance and hands-on experience. I start by understanding their career goals and skill levels, then look for assignments that will help them develop while still being achievable. I schedule regular check-ins to provide feedback and discuss any challenges they're facing. I make myself available for questions and try to explain not just what to do but why we're doing it that way. I also encourage them to participate in meetings and discussions so they can learn from others on the team. When they make mistakes, I use those as learning opportunities rather than focusing on the error."

Poor Response: "I assign junior team members tasks that match their current skill level and provide clear instructions on what needs to be done. I check in regularly to make sure they're on the right track and answer any questions they have. I provide feedback on their work so they know where they need to improve. As they demonstrate competence, I gradually give them more complex assignments. I also encourage them to take advantage of company training resources to build their skills."

5. Tell me about a time when you had to deliver difficult feedback to a team member or stakeholder.

Great Response: "I needed to address declining code quality with a senior engineer whose work was increasingly creating technical debt and requiring rework by others. Rather than immediately escalating, I prepared thoroughly—documenting specific examples, gathering data on impact, and consulting with engineering leadership on expectations. I scheduled a private conversation and started by expressing my commitment to their success. When sharing observations, I used specific examples: 'The authentication service you implemented last sprint has required three emergency fixes by other team members because unit test coverage was at 30% versus our 80% standard.' I focused on impact: 'This has caused us to delay two planned features and has affected team morale as others are carrying unexpected maintenance.' I asked open questions to understand their perspective and discovered they were dealing with significant personal issues affecting their focus. Together, we developed an improvement plan that included temporarily reducing their ticket complexity, pairing them with another developer on critical components, and creating a progressive code review process. I scheduled weekly check-ins to provide ongoing feedback and support. After six weeks, their code quality returned to previous high standards, and they later shared that the structured approach helped them regain their footing during a difficult time."

Mediocre Response: "One of the developers on my team was consistently missing deadlines and providing vague status updates. I scheduled a one-on-one meeting and explained that their delays were impacting the overall project timeline. I showed examples of when their work was delivered late and how it affected dependencies. I asked if there were any challenges they were facing that I could help with. They admitted they were struggling with some of the technical requirements. We agreed on a plan where they would flag issues earlier and I paired them with a more experienced developer for some knowledge transfer. I followed up regularly to check on their progress, and over time their performance improved."

Poor Response: "I had a stakeholder who kept changing requirements late in the development cycle. I scheduled a meeting with them and explained that their changes were making it difficult for us to meet our deadlines. I showed them our change management process and reminded them of the agreed-upon timeline. I suggested that we collect their new requirements for the next release rather than trying to incorporate them now. They weren't happy about it, but they understood the constraints we were working under and agreed to follow the process going forward."

6. How do you balance autonomy and oversight when managing technical teams?

Great Response: "I've developed a context-based delegation model that scales oversight inversely with team maturity while progressively building autonomy. First, I establish clear 'guardrails' versus 'guidelines'—guardrails are non-negotiable constraints like security standards and key dependencies, while guidelines are recommended approaches where teams have discretion. Second, I implement a tiered decision-making framework where I explicitly classify decisions into three categories: 'inform me' decisions teams make independently but communicate afterward, 'consult me' decisions requiring discussion but team ownership, and 'escalate to me' decisions needing direct involvement. As teams demonstrate capability, decisions migrate from higher oversight categories to lower ones. Third, I create transparent alignment mechanisms—OKRs or similar frameworks where teams propose how they'll achieve objectives rather than being told how. For emerging teams, I establish more frequent synchronization points and structured check-ins that gradually decrease as capability demonstrates. I've found the most effective approach is 'scaffolded autonomy'—providing more structure and oversight for novel, high-risk, or unfamiliar work, while reducing touchpoints for work within the team's proven capabilities. Throughout, I focus on outcome-based assessment rather than prescribing approaches, shifting the conversation from 'how are you doing the work?' to 'is the work achieving our intended outcomes?'"

Mediocre Response: "I believe in giving teams the space to solve problems their own way while ensuring we're making progress toward our goals. I start by clearly communicating objectives, constraints, and expectations. Then I establish regular check-in points—more frequent for new teams or high-risk work, less frequent for experienced teams working on familiar problems. I use these check-ins to provide guidance and remove obstacles rather than dictate solutions. I pay attention to leading indicators of issues, like missed intermediate milestones or communication breakdowns, and increase my involvement when needed. Different team members need different levels of support, so I adapt my approach accordingly while trying to help everyone grow toward greater autonomy."

Poor Response: "I set clear expectations and deadlines for deliverables, then let teams figure out how to meet them. I have regular status meetings where teams report on their progress, and I provide direction if they're veering off course. I don't micromanage how they do their work as long as they're meeting their commitments. If a team starts missing deadlines or quality issues emerge, I'll increase my oversight until performance improves. I believe in trusting people to do their jobs while maintaining accountability for results."

7. Describe a situation where you had to influence without authority to drive a program forward.

Great Response: "When leading our company's API standardization program, I needed to align seven independent engineering teams who had complete autonomy over their services and no formal obligation to participate. Rather than pushing for top-down mandates, I built influence through a multi-layered approach. First, I created compelling evidence of the problem by documenting integration issues, calculating developer hours wasted on inconsistent APIs, and gathering customer feedback about integration challenges. Second, I formed a coalition of respected technical leaders from different teams—not necessarily the most senior—who shared concerns about API inconsistency. We collaboratively developed initial standards drafts, incorporating input from all teams and explicitly acknowledging their unique constraints. Third, I reduced adoption barriers by creating scaffolding tools that automatically generated compliant API code and documentation, making the 'right way' also the 'easiest way.' Fourth, I leveraged data transparency by implementing a public dashboard showing each team's API standardization progress, creating positive peer visibility for early adopters. When one particularly influential team remained resistant, I negotiated a limited pilot rather than pushing for full adoption, allowing them to validate benefits on their terms. Their positive experience converted them into advocates, accelerating adoption across remaining teams. The program ultimately succeeded with all teams voluntarily implementing the standards, reducing integration issues by 70% and cutting API onboarding time from weeks to days."

Mediocre Response: "I was tasked with implementing a new development workflow across multiple teams that didn't report to me. I knew I needed buy-in to make it successful. First, I met with each team lead individually to understand their current processes and pain points. I then developed a proposal that addressed common challenges while showing clear benefits for each team. I organized a workshop where teams could provide feedback and shape the final approach. I found champions within each team who saw the value and could advocate from within. I also created metrics to demonstrate early wins and shared these successes broadly. There was some resistance initially, but by focusing on the benefits and being flexible on implementation details, I was able to get all teams on board within two quarters."

Poor Response: "I needed to implement a new project tracking system, but didn't have authority over the teams that would use it. I created a presentation showing the benefits of the new system and how it would improve visibility and reporting. I scheduled meetings with each team to show them the system and explain how it would work. I offered training sessions to make adoption easier. Some teams were reluctant to change their processes, so I involved their managers to help emphasize the importance of standardizing our approach. Eventually, all teams started using the new system, which gave us much better insight into project status across the organization."

8. How do you handle situations where team members are not meeting expectations?

Great Response: "I approach performance gaps with a systematic process focused on understanding root causes before determining interventions. When I notice consistent underperformance, I first gather specific, documented examples to ensure I'm responding to patterns rather than isolated incidents. Then I have a private conversation structured in three parts: First, I share concrete observations without judgment—'I've noticed the last three integration components you delivered required significant rework due to missing edge case handling.' Second, I inquire about their perspective—'Can you help me understand the challenges you're facing with these implementations?' This often reveals underlying issues like unclear requirements, knowledge gaps, or personal circumstances affecting performance. Third, I collaborate on an improvement plan with clear, measurable milestones and appropriate support mechanisms—whether that's additional training, pairing with senior team members, or adjusting workload temporarily. For accountability, I schedule regular check-ins with specific metrics to evaluate progress. If performance issues stem from motivation rather than capability, I explore alignment between their work and career interests, potentially restructuring responsibilities where possible. Throughout this process, I document our conversations and agreements while maintaining appropriate confidentiality. In most cases, this structured approach leads to performance improvement, but I'm also prepared to involve HR and recommend reassignment if necessary after giving sufficient opportunity and support for improvement."

Mediocre Response: "When I notice someone isn't meeting expectations, I first check if they have clarity on what's expected of them. I schedule a one-on-one conversation to discuss the specific areas where they're falling short, using concrete examples. I listen to their perspective to understand if there are obstacles or challenges I can help remove. Together, we create an improvement plan with clear goals and timelines. I provide more frequent check-ins and feedback during this period to help them course-correct. In most cases, performance improves with this focused attention and support. If it doesn't improve after a reasonable time, I escalate to their manager to discuss next steps."

Poor Response: "When team members aren't meeting expectations, I first make sure they understand what's required of them. I point out where they're falling short and explain the impact it's having on the project. I ask if there are any reasons for their underperformance and listen to their explanation. Then I set clear improvement targets and deadlines. I monitor their work more closely to catch issues early and provide guidance. If they continue to struggle, I document the performance issues to share with their manager. Sometimes people aren't a good fit for certain roles, and it's better to address that sooner rather than later."

9. How do you maintain work-life balance in a fast-paced technical environment?

Great Response: "I approach work-life balance as a strategic priority that directly impacts program quality and team sustainability. First, I model healthy boundaries by communicating my own availability clearly—I don't send emails after hours except in true emergencies, and I make my calendar transparent with blocked personal time. I've found this explicit modeling gives teams 'permission' to do the same. Second, I implement structural safeguards in how we work: we establish 'no meeting' blocks for focused work, use async communication tools effectively to reduce urgency, and create coverage systems for time off so team members can truly disconnect. Third, I incorporate sustainability metrics into our program health assessments—tracking weekend work hours, average time to respond to off-hours messages, and vacation utilization—treating these as leading indicators of burnout risk rather than trailing indicators. When planning, I build realistic buffers that account for human needs rather than assuming 100% productive utilization. Perhaps most importantly, I have explicit conversations with each team member about their individual work-life preferences—some may prefer early mornings, others late evenings—and accommodate these differences where possible while maintaining core collaboration hours. When crunch periods are unavoidable, I ensure they're time-boxed, followed by recovery time, and recognized with appropriate appreciation."

Mediocre Response: "I believe maintaining work-life balance is important for long-term productivity and preventing burnout. I encourage team members to set boundaries and respect their time off. I try to plan our work realistically so we're not constantly in crisis mode. When we do have intense periods, I make sure they're followed by quieter times to recover. I'm flexible about work arrangements as long as people are meeting their commitments. I also check in with team members regularly about their workload and redistribute tasks if someone is consistently overloaded. Personally, I make sure to take time off to recharge and encourage others to do the same."

Poor Response: "In technology, there will always be busy periods, but I try to keep things reasonable. I encourage people to manage their time efficiently and focus on priorities. If someone is feeling overwhelmed, they can come talk to me about adjusting deadlines or getting help. I make sure critical work gets done, but I'm understanding when people occasionally need flexibility for personal matters. I try to plan our releases and milestones carefully to avoid too many late nights, but sometimes extra effort is needed to meet important deadlines."

10. How do you approach diversity and inclusion within technical teams?

Great Response: "I integrate diversity and inclusion into program management as fundamental to engineering excellence rather than treating it as a separate initiative. First, I implement inclusive team-building practices: structured onboarding that gives all new members equal access to context and relationships, rotation of meeting roles so everyone gains visibility, and psychological safety baseline measurements that I track alongside technical metrics. Second, I address pipeline challenges proactively by designing diverse interview panels, using structured interviews with consistent evaluation criteria, and partnering with organizations that connect underrepresented groups with technical opportunities. Third, I create equitable growth paths by implementing transparent promotion criteria, formalizing mentorship programs, and conducting regular bias checks on performance feedback. When building teams, I value cognitive diversity—different problem-solving approaches, educational backgrounds, and industry experiences—which enhances technical outcomes through richer solution exploration. I've found that establishing clear team communication norms is particularly important—we document decisions asynchronously so those who process information differently aren't disadvantaged, and we create multiple channels for input so both extroverted and introverted team members can contribute effectively. Throughout, I measure both representation and inclusion sentiment through anonymous surveys and adjust approaches based on feedback. The most meaningful result I've seen is when diverse teams tackle technical challenges with broader perspectives, resulting in more innovative and accessible solutions."

Mediocre Response: "I believe diverse teams produce better results by bringing different perspectives to problem-solving. I work to create an environment where everyone feels welcome and valued. In hiring, I look for candidates from various backgrounds and experiences. During meetings, I make sure everyone has a chance to speak and that all ideas are considered. I'm conscious of potential biases in how work is assigned and recognized. I encourage team members to share their unique perspectives and listen respectfully to others. When issues arise, I address them promptly to maintain an inclusive atmosphere. I also participate in company diversity initiatives and encourage my team to do the same."

Poor Response: "I treat everyone on my team equally and with respect, regardless of their background. I focus on hiring the most qualified candidates and creating a professional environment where everyone can contribute. I make decisions based on skills and performance rather than other factors. If someone brings up concerns about inclusion, I listen and address any specific issues. I follow company policies on diversity and make sure my team does as well. The most important thing is building a collaborative environment where we can deliver results together."