Just went through a round of EM interviews, and even though I got an offer already, this is a fantastic post and will keep it handy for when I need it next.
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.
Thanks for the comment, Izzy, and I'm glad you liked the article!
You are correct in that interviewing is a separate skillset. Doing the job != getting the job. And sometimes strong EMs aren't able to get through, while less competent EMs with polished and rehearsed stories get the offer. The interview process isn't perfect but it's the best one we have. So you may as well get good at it :)
I also strongly agree with Austen - that communication + storytelling is an essential skill for an EM, and that's largely what's being evaluated in the interview. The reason for this is that so much of the success for an EM role comes from their ability to influence. And communication is a major factor there.
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.
Thank you so much for calling that out, William! The books Daring Greatly and Dare to Lead were massive influences over my leadership style and I'm glad it comes across in the content.
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).
That's a great point, Austen. This article provides guidance and a framework for answering questions, but you still need to use your judgement on how deep you want to go in the non-story elements. And it takes practice.
It also depends on the interviewer and org. For example, for Meta EM interviews, they look more for breadth than depth, so they only want you to focus on your actions. While other interviewers in other orgs will want you to go deep in the stories.
And I love the categorization of questions that you came up with - Trunk, Branch, or Leaf questions. That's a fantastic framework that you can apply to decide how deep you want to go.
I agree that the interview process isn’t perfect and yes, it’s absolutely worth building the skill of interviewing. That said, I would also caution against overvaluing storytelling alone as the path to securing EM roles.
Expectations for EM’s have evolved significantly. Many interview loops now include deep dives from highly technical engineers, senior cross-functional partners, and execs, each with different (sometimes misaligned) evaluation criteria. In these scenarios, a candidate who excels in communication but lacks domain alignment or is evaluated by a less experienced panel can easily be misjudged. The reverse can also happen.
Additionally, we can’t ignore the reality that referrals and strong internal networks still play a significant role in landing EM roles. So while storytelling and influence are critical, especially once you are in the seat, they aren’t always enough to open the door.
In short, the bar has become increasingly high and sometimes unrealistic; not just in expectations but in how those expectations are interpreted across a panel.
Just went through a round of EM interviews, and even though I got an offer already, this is a fantastic post and will keep it handy for when I need it next.
Congratulations on the offer, Sameer! And I'm glad you enjoyed the article :)
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.
Thanks for the comment, Izzy, and I'm glad you liked the article!
You are correct in that interviewing is a separate skillset. Doing the job != getting the job. And sometimes strong EMs aren't able to get through, while less competent EMs with polished and rehearsed stories get the offer. The interview process isn't perfect but it's the best one we have. So you may as well get good at it :)
I also strongly agree with Austen - that communication + storytelling is an essential skill for an EM, and that's largely what's being evaluated in the interview. The reason for this is that so much of the success for an EM role comes from their ability to influence. And communication is a major factor there.
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.
Totally agree, Austen!
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.
Thank you so much for calling that out, William! The books Daring Greatly and Dare to Lead were massive influences over my leadership style and I'm glad it comes across in the content.
Really happy someone noticed :)
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).
That's a great point, Austen. This article provides guidance and a framework for answering questions, but you still need to use your judgement on how deep you want to go in the non-story elements. And it takes practice.
It also depends on the interviewer and org. For example, for Meta EM interviews, they look more for breadth than depth, so they only want you to focus on your actions. While other interviewers in other orgs will want you to go deep in the stories.
And I love the categorization of questions that you came up with - Trunk, Branch, or Leaf questions. That's a fantastic framework that you can apply to decide how deep you want to go.
Appreciate your contribution!
I agree that the interview process isn’t perfect and yes, it’s absolutely worth building the skill of interviewing. That said, I would also caution against overvaluing storytelling alone as the path to securing EM roles.
Expectations for EM’s have evolved significantly. Many interview loops now include deep dives from highly technical engineers, senior cross-functional partners, and execs, each with different (sometimes misaligned) evaluation criteria. In these scenarios, a candidate who excels in communication but lacks domain alignment or is evaluated by a less experienced panel can easily be misjudged. The reverse can also happen.
Additionally, we can’t ignore the reality that referrals and strong internal networks still play a significant role in landing EM roles. So while storytelling and influence are critical, especially once you are in the seat, they aren’t always enough to open the door.
In short, the bar has become increasingly high and sometimes unrealistic; not just in expectations but in how those expectations are interpreted across a panel.