The frustrating part is that interviewing rewards presentation, not always depth. Good storytellers may skate by, while grounded, capable leaders go unseen. It’s a skill, yes; but one that often favors polish over substance.
You can have countless examples of leaders getting fired or replaced, despite being great at interviews. It shows that performance in a structured conversation doesn’t always translate to real-world leadership. Management changes happen for deeper reasons; culture fit, team trust, decision-making under pressure. None of which are easy to capture in a one-hour interview.
There’s no shortage of leaders who nailed the interview but didn’t last. That alone says a lot about how flawed our assessment methods can be.
This post is full of practical value, connecting strongly with what Brené Brown writes about vulnerability in leadership. Sharing learnings is only credible if you actually expose where you got it wrong, why it stung, and how you changed because of it.
I like a lot of this and EMs definitely need more resources on how to prep for behaviorals.
While I agree that connecting your actions to principles is healthy, I would be careful delaying the story too much to cover what we used to call BS---"book smarts". In my EM interviews more than my ICs, I'm looking for crispiness.
Perhaps vary where you inject the principle parts into the response or only do so on questions that lend themselves to philosophizing---ones I typically call Trunk Questions and not so much on follow ups (Branch or Leaf questions).
Great article!
The frustrating part is that interviewing rewards presentation, not always depth. Good storytellers may skate by, while grounded, capable leaders go unseen. It’s a skill, yes; but one that often favors polish over substance.
You can have countless examples of leaders getting fired or replaced, despite being great at interviews. It shows that performance in a structured conversation doesn’t always translate to real-world leadership. Management changes happen for deeper reasons; culture fit, team trust, decision-making under pressure. None of which are easy to capture in a one-hour interview.
There’s no shortage of leaders who nailed the interview but didn’t last. That alone says a lot about how flawed our assessment methods can be.
A lot of the EM job is communication though---if you aren't a good story teller that will affect your experience in the role.
This post is full of practical value, connecting strongly with what Brené Brown writes about vulnerability in leadership. Sharing learnings is only credible if you actually expose where you got it wrong, why it stung, and how you changed because of it.
I like a lot of this and EMs definitely need more resources on how to prep for behaviorals.
While I agree that connecting your actions to principles is healthy, I would be careful delaying the story too much to cover what we used to call BS---"book smarts". In my EM interviews more than my ICs, I'm looking for crispiness.
Perhaps vary where you inject the principle parts into the response or only do so on questions that lend themselves to philosophizing---ones I typically call Trunk Questions and not so much on follow ups (Branch or Leaf questions).