This week’s newsletter is sponsored by DevStats.

It’s an easy-to-use dev analytics tool built to help startups and mid-sized teams unlock insights, streamline workflows, and deliver faster.

I’ve checked DevStats thoroughly and I used it in one of my projects as well, so I highly recommend checking them out, if you are looking for such a tool.

Here is my personal recommendation:

“DevStats is one of these tools that you think you don’t need, but it’s just so easy to use and gives so many insightful details that you might be missing.

Before using it, my thoughts were that we were having really great PR Cycle times as well as Code Review sizes, but with helpful filters and visuals, I could clearly see where we can improve.”

Get started for free!

Thanks to DevStats for sponsoring this newsletter, let’s get back to this week’s thought!

Intro

Interviewing for an Engineering Manager role (and beyond) is vastly different than interviewing for an IC role.

A lot of times the feedback you get is pretty vague and it’s hard to point out exactly where you made a mistake.

The challenge with such interviews is to showcase a good mix of leadership, communication and problem-solving abilities + a good foundation in engineering principles.

Lucky for us, we have Alexander Kliotzkin with us today. He is sharing in-depth where most EMs go wrong + the exact formula you should take to ace your EM interviews!

Introducing Alexander Kliotzkin

Alexander Kliotzkin is an experienced tech leader with 16+ years in the engineering industry. He is a Director Of Software at Infineon and also a Career & Leadership Coach.

Together with Uzair Khan, Engineering Manager at Stripe, they are teaching a popular course called: Acing Engineering Manager Interviews, where they help EMs break through the interview process and land their Engineering Manager offer.

Check the course and use my code ENGLEADER10 for 10% off. The next cohort starts July 12.

1. The Dos and Don’ts when it comes to EM Interviews

Picture this: You're sitting across from a hiring manager at your dream company. They ask, "Tell me about a time you made an unpopular decision."

Your mind races. You think about changing the team's deployment process or postponing a feature launch. You start explaining the technical details and your reasoning.

The interviewer nods politely, takes notes, moves on. You leave feeling confident about your solid, honest answers.

Weeks later: rejection email.

What went wrong?

You didn't actually answer the question they were asking.

The Problem With How Most EMs Prepare

After coaching dozens of engineering leaders through interviews, I've identified a fundamental flaw in how most candidates approach EM interviews.

They treat it like a coding interview with predictable patterns:

• Question[X] → Answer[X]

• Have a STAR-formatted response ready

• Practice until it feels "correct"

But this approach does not prepare you for questions you haven’t seen before, and it misses the deeper intent behind behavioral questions.

When an interviewer asks about an "unpopular decision," they're not interested in the decision itself. They're probing your ability to navigate resistance, build consensus, and maintain team cohesion under pressure.

Most candidates miss this completely. They look at questions from their own perspective instead of putting themselves in the interviewer's shoes. The interviewer cares less about when things go right, and more about how you handle situations when things go wrong.

Think about it from the hiring manager's perspective: They're inheriting someone else's problems. They need to know you can handle pushback from stakeholders, navigate technical debt decisions, and maintain team morale during difficult periods.

That's why every behavioral question is really asking: "How will you handle the messy reality of this role?"

Why EM Interviews Are Different

The EM role is fundamentally different from IC work, and so is the hiring process. As an IC, technical competence is your primary currency. As an EM, it's about translating business needs to technical execution while growing people and managing complexity.

While you'll still face technical rounds (system design, possibly DSA), these are just filters – minimum bars you must meet. The real decision happens in behavioral interviews, which typically account for ~80% of the hiring criteria.

What are hiring managers actually looking for?

• Reliability → Can you be counted on when things get tough? Do you follow through on commitments?

• Communication → Can you influence without authority? Do you translate complex technical concepts for non-technical stakeholders?

• Emotional Intelligence → Do you understand what motivates people? Can you read team dynamics?

• Resilience → How do you handle pressure? Do you stay calm during incidents or crises?

• Extreme Ownership → Will you do whatever’s necessary to deliver? Even if it’s outside of your scope?

• Self-Initiative → Can you untangle fuzzy requirements & directions and not simply wait for instructions?

• Autonomy → Can you make the right decisions without constant approval?

These aren't just nice-to-have qualities → they're essential for the role.

An EM who lacks emotional intelligence will struggle to retain talent. One without resilience will burn out during the first major incident. Without extreme ownership, they'll lose credibility with both their team and stakeholders.

You need to demonstrate these characteristics through convincing stories, not just claim you possess them. That’s how you land an EM offer.

Why Most EMs Get Rejected

The common failure patterns I see repeatedly:

Under-preparation → Many candidates assume their experience speaks for itself. They show up thinking, "I've been an EM for 3 years, I should be fine." But without preparation, even experienced leaders give rambling, unfocused answers.

IC mindset → They prepare for an IC interview, focusing on technical solutions rather than leadership decisions. They talk about the code they wrote instead of the team they guided.

Missing the intent → They focus on surface-level details instead of leadership lessons. When asked about conflict resolution, they spend 80% of their time explaining the technical disagreement and 20% on how they managed the people involved.

Generic "we" language → They constantly say "we decided" or "our team did" without clarifying their specific role. Interviewers are left wondering: What did YOU actually do?

Perfectionism trap → They only share stories with perfect outcomes, which makes them seem either dishonest or lucky. Real leadership involves navigating failures and learning from them.

Rigid script mentality → They memorize answers but can't adapt when asked follow-up questions or variations they haven't practiced.

2. The EM Interview Formula

Here's the structure that consistently impresses interviewers:

Question[X] → Intent (QbQ) → (System[Y] + Story[Z] + Learnings)

This formula works because it mirrors how great EMs actually think:

Great EMs understand the problem, apply systematic approaches, learn from outcomes, and iterate their methods.

Step 1: Decode the Question Behind the Question (QbQ)

This is the game changer that separates good candidates from great ones. Every behavioral question has a surface-level ask and a deeper intent. Your job is to identify what the interviewer really wants to know.

The empathy exercise: Before answering any question, mentally put yourself in the interviewer's shoes. What problems are they trying to solve by hiring an EM? What keeps them up at night? What would success look like in this role?

Consider the following 3 questions. All seemingly very similar but with very different intents:

"Tell me about a time you made an unpopular decision"

• Surface question: About a specific decision you made

• Real intent: Can you handle pushback and resistance? Do you have the backbone to make tough calls? How do you maintain relationships while being firm? Can you influence others to get on board eventually?

"Tell me about a time you made a difficult decision"

• Surface question: About a challenging choice you faced

• Real intent: How do you handle ambiguity and incomplete information? What's your decision-making framework under pressure? Do you get paralyzed by uncertainty or move forward decisively?

"Tell me about a time you made a controversial decision?"

• Surface question: About a decision 80% of leaders would not make

• Real intent: Can you go against conventional wisdom? Do you have “out-of-the-box” thinking and can think for yourself? Do you wait for permission or approval before deciding?

Key insight: Almost every EM behavioral question is really asking about your ability to handle difficult situations involving people, technology, or business constraints. They want to see evidence that you can navigate complexity while maintaining trust and delivering results.

Once you decode the real intent, you know which story to choose and where to focus your energy in the response.

Step 2: Lead With Your System + Philosophy

Here's where most candidates go wrong: they jump straight into storytelling without establishing their thinking framework. This is like describing a chess move without explaining your overall strategy.

Experienced EMs don't just react to situations – they operate from systems, principles, and frameworks they've developed over time. When you lead with your system, you demonstrate several crucial qualities:

• Repeatability → This isn't just one lucky outcome, but evidence of consistent approach

• Seniority → You think strategically and systematically, not just tactically

• Scalability → Your methods can work across different situations and contexts

• Intentionality → Your decisions are deliberate and principled, not reactive

• Learning orientation → You've developed these systems through experience

Poor example: "I had a tough conversation with Sarah about her performance."

Better example: "I use a performance signal framework with three key indicators: story point trends over two-sprint windows, missed commitment patterns, and peer feedback from retros and 1:1s. When I see repeated dips across multiple signals, that triggers my intervention. I follow a 3-step coaching approach: first, align on expectations and identify root causes; second, co-create specific improvement goals with 2-3 sprint timeframes; third, establish clear progress tracking with weekly check-ins. In Sarah's case, I noticed..."

See the difference? The second version shows you have a systematic approach to a common EM challenge, making it clear this isn't your first rodeo.

The Three Essential System Categories:

Every EM has three core responsibilities, and you need systems for each:

1. Delivering Your Product

Your systems might include:

• How you set and track KPIs, OKRs, and team metrics

• Your approach to sprint planning, capacity management, and scope negotiation

• Methods for managing technical debt vs. business requirements

• Your framework for making build vs. buy decisions

2. Influencing Stakeholders

Your systems might include:

• How you communicate progress, blockers, and trade-offs to leadership

• Your approach to managing competing stakeholder demands

• Methods for building cross-functional partnerships & establishing trust

• Your framework for saying "no" diplomatically while maintaining relationships

3. Leading Your Team

Your systems might include:

• Your philosophy and process for hiring, interviewing, and onboarding

• How you structure meaningful 1:1s and career development conversations

• Your approach to setting team vision and building a high-performing culture

• Methods for conflict resolution and difficult conversations

Before your next interview, write out your systems for each category. These become your foundation for answering 85% of behavioral questions with confidence and depth.

Step 3: Build Your Story Bank

You can't wing storytelling in high-stakes interviews. You need a carefully curated collection of experiences that demonstrate your leadership capabilities across different dimensions.

After analyzing hundreds of EM interview questions, I've identified the 8 core stories that appear in 95% of EM interviews:

1. Managing an Underperformer (Hiring & Growth)

This story should demonstrate your ability to identify performance issues early, have difficult conversations with empathy, and either coach someone to success or make tough decisions about team fit.

Key elements to include:

• What triggered your intervention (specific signals, not just "they weren't performing")

• Your approach to diagnosing root causes (skill gap vs. motivation vs. external factors)

• How you set clear expectations and created improvement plans

• Taking full responsibility for the outcome, good or bad

• What you learned about performance management

2. Keeping Your Team Motivated (Having a Strong Vision)

This isn't about pizza parties or team building. It's about your leadership philosophy and how you connect individual growth to team success and organizational goals.

Key elements to include:

• Your leadership philosophy: core values, relationships, building trust

• Your framework for understanding what motivates different people

• How you connect personal career goals to team objectives

• Your approach to maintaining motivation during difficult periods

• How you celebrate successes and learn from failures

3. Ensuring Sustainable Delivery (Strong Ability to Deliver)

This story should show your ability to balance speed with quality, manage technical debt, and maintain predictable delivery while keeping your team healthy.

Key elements to include:

• Your approach to capacity planning and sprint management

• How you handle scope creep and changing requirements

• Your methods for quality assurance and technical debt management

• Evidence of sustained delivery over multiple quarters

4. Scaling Your Team (Hiring & Growth)

This should demonstrate your ability to identify when to hire, what to hire for, and how to successfully integrate new team members while maintaining culture and productivity.

Key elements to include:

• Your philosophy on healthy team structure & culture

• Your process for identifying hiring needs and getting approval

• Your interview philosophy and what you look for in candidates

• How you onboard new hires and set them up for success

• Examples of successful hires and what made them work

5. Difficult Stakeholder Situation (Influencing Stakeholders)

This story should show your ability to manage competing demands, communicate technical constraints, and build alignment across different functions.

Key elements to include:

• The nature of the conflict and why it was challenging

• Your approach to understanding different stakeholder perspectives

• How you facilitated alignment and compromise

• The resolution and relationship outcomes

6. Decision Without Complete Data (Strong Judgment & Instincts)

This demonstrates your ability to move forward under uncertainty, balance risk and reward, and make decisions that others might avoid.

Key elements to include:

• Why you couldn't wait for more data (time pressure, competitive factors, etc.)

• Your framework for making decisions under uncertainty

• How you assessed and mitigated risks

• The outcome and what you learned about judgment calls

7. Resolving Team Conflict (Managing Conflict)

This shows your emotional intelligence and ability to navigate interpersonal challenges while maintaining team productivity and relationships.

Key elements to include:

• Your approach to identifying and diagnosing team conflicts

• How you decide when to intervene vs. let the team work it out

• Your mediation process and communication techniques

• The resolution and how you prevented future conflicts

8. Challenging Team Conclusions (Operating at a Deep Level)

This demonstrates that you can go deep technically when needed, question assumptions, and provide technical leadership even when it's uncomfortable.

Key elements to include:

• What signals made you question the team's approach

• How you investigated and gathered additional information

• Your process for challenging the team constructively

• How you communicated technical concepts to stakeholders

For each story, prepare using this structure:

Context → What was the situation, why did it matter to the business, and what were the stakes?

Challenge → What specific obstacles did you face, and why was this particularly difficult?

Actions → What did you do step-by-step, and why did you choose that approach?

Results → What happened, how do you know it worked, and what was the measurable impact?

Learnings → What would you do differently, what principles did you extract, and how did this change your approach?

Pro tip: The most compelling stories aren't about perfect outcomes – they're about thoughtful leadership under pressure, authentic learning from mistakes, and evidence of growth over time.

Speaking of which… that’s exactly what the next step is about.

Step 4: Share Authentic Learnings

This is where many senior candidates stumble. They feel pressure to present themselves as flawless leaders who always make the right call, but this approach backfires with experienced interviewers.

Here's what actually builds trust with hiring managers: genuine self-awareness, intellectual, humility, and evidence of continuous improvement.

Great EMs are defined not by their perfection, but by their ability to learn, adapt, and evolve their approach based on new information and experiences. When you share authentic learnings, you demonstrate:

• Self-awareness: You can objectively evaluate your own performance

• Growth mindset: You see challenges as opportunities to learn

• Confidence: You're secure enough to acknowledge when you were wrong

• Iteration mindset: You actively apply lessons learned to future situations

The difference between generic and authentic learnings:

Generic (avoid):

• "I learned the importance of communication"

• "I realized I should have involved more stakeholders"

• "I learned that planning is crucial"

Authentic (aim for):

• "I realized I was so focused on the technical elegance of our solution that I completely missed how it would impact the support team's daily workflow. Now when evaluating technical decisions, I specifically ask myself: 'Who else will this affect, and have I talked to them?' I've learned that the best technical decision isn't always the best business decision."

• "Looking back, I think I waited too long to have the difficult conversation because I was hoping the situation would improve on its own. I learned that my discomfort with conflict was actually creating more problems for the team. Now I've developed a rule: if I'm having the same conversation with myself about someone's performance twice, it's time to have it with them directly."

How to craft authentic learnings:

• Be specific about what you got wrong

• Show insight into your own patterns and blind spots

• Explain how it changed your approach with concrete examples

• Connect to broader principles about leadership

• Demonstrate ongoing application in your current role

Growth & authenticity over perfection. Every. Time.

The Formula in Action

Let's see this formula work with a real example that we covered at the beginning of the article:

Question: "Tell me about a time you had to make an unpopular decision."

Step 1 – Decode Intent: The interviewer wants to know: Can you handle resistance and pushback? Do you have the backbone to make tough calls? How do you maintain team relationships while being firm?

Step 2 – Lead With System or philosophy: "Typically when I want to push a change in the project that will affect the way the team works, I discuss with the team, explain my reasoning, and get consensus. This works ~95% of the time, but occasionally I use my authoritative power and override the team to force a change through when I believe it is crucial to long-term success. I try to do this as little as possible, but sometimes it’s necessary. I intentionally developed a culture of psychological safety, trust, and transparency to have the foundation to be able to operate in this manner when needed.”

Step 3 – Choose a Story: “Last year, the product had a high number of issues in production that were leading to many hotfixes, long hours, and customer complaints. We were letting too many bugs slip in our SDLC workflow. Looking at our test coverage metrics we only had an average of ~60%. I proposed to increase it to 85% to decrease the number of prod issues.

The team showed strong resistance to the proposal as they were already under heavy pressure and adding extra requirements to deploy was seen as overkill. I acknowledged their concerns and empathized with the current situation. I then explained how investing in extra quality controls will actually relieve the pressure in the long-term as there will be less unexpected production issues, our reputation will improve, and we will have more confidence in shipping.

I proposed we try it out before making a long-term decision. I bought some time with our stakeholders and we spent two sprints primarily focused on increasing existing test coverage and extending our CI + automation frameworks. I made it clear that decreasing the number of prod issues is not negotiable, so we need to find a way.

The team eventually agreed to invest two sprints into extending our testing. The result was that they saw the benefits almost immediately. They had more confidence in their MRs, the commits sped up, quality became a core value of our team, and after two sprints, the production issues decreased by 70%.”

Step 4 – Share Learnings:

“There were 2 main lessons here:

1. I needed to establish tighter quality criteria much earlier in the product development lifecycle before the issues became visible. This was a critical product and the quality processes needed to reflect that. Yes, we were under pressure to ship, but given the lifetime and importance of the product, this is something I needed to negotiate with the PO and push through in my team at the start of development.

2. I should have gotten buy-in from my tech lead first before discussing it with the wider team. When I presented my proposal, it was at a team-wide meeting, and the tech lead showed just as much resistance as the rest of the team. The team looks to him for direction + guidance on technical decisions, so I needed to leverage that. After this situation, I always make sure to have alignment with him in our 1-1s on important decisions first before presenting it to the wider team. This has proven to be a much better method of decision making and getting team buy-in.”

Notice how this answer addresses the real question, demonstrates a systematic approach, tells a specific story with clear outcomes, and shows authentic learning that's been applied elsewhere.

Key Takeaways

The EM Interview Formula transforms how you approach behavioral questions by giving you a systematic framework that demonstrates the thinking patterns of successful engineering leaders.

Remember: The goal isn't to have perfect answers memorized, but to have a systematic approach that helps you give thoughtful, authentic responses to any behavioral question you encounter.

As you practice this formula, you'll notice that your confidence grows, your answers become more structured, and interviewers engage more deeply with your responses.

You'll stop treating interviews as interrogations and start treating them as professional conversations about leadership challenges and growth.

This is how you go from having good answers to memorable ones.

And memorable is what gets you the offer.

Last words

Special thanks to Alexander for sharing his insights on this very important topic with us! Make sure to check him out on LinkedIn and also check out the course Acing Engineering Manager Interviews.

We are not over yet!

List of Questions for Behavioral Interviews

I've created a GitHub repository that contains the questions I have been asking on the behavioral interviews I have conducted.

I have also included the whole process and also how to assess the answers as well.

You can find the repo here:

Check out the repository

Become The Engineer Everyone Wants to Work With

Check out my latest video. Together with John Crickett, we did a lightning lesson in collaboration with Maven last year called: Become The Engineer Everyone Wants to Work With. You can check the recording below.

New video every Sunday. Subscribe to not miss it here:

Subscribe to the channel!

Liked this article? Make sure to 💙 click the like button.

Feedback or addition? Make sure to 💬 comment.

Know someone that would find this helpful? Make sure to 🔁 share this post.

Whenever you are ready, here is how I can help you further

• Join the Cohort course Senior Engineer to Lead: Grow and thrive in the role here.

• Interested in sponsoring this newsletter? Check the sponsorship options here.

• Take a look at the cool swag in the Engineering Leadership Store here.

• Want to work with me? You can see all the options here.

Get in touch

You can find me on LinkedIn, X, YouTube, Bluesky, Instagram or Threads.

If you wish to make a request on particular topic you would like to read, you can send me an email to info@gregorojstersek.com.

This newsletter is funded by paid subscriptions from readers like yourself.

If you aren’t already, consider becoming a paid subscriber to receive the full experience!

Check the benefits of the paid plan

You are more than welcome to find whatever interests you here and try it out in your particular case. Let me know how it went! Topics are normally about all things engineering related, leadership, management, developing scalable products, building teams etc.