In early September 2026 I posted a series of X threads that lay out my practical playbook for engineering leadership, covering hiring, culture, speed vs. rigor, AI productivity, and personal growth.
- Behavioral interviews answer two critical questions: fit and level.
Companies use behavioral interviews to answer 2 critical questions: Do you fit with both the role and the company? And if you do fit, at what level will you be most effective?
If you get the fit wrong, you will be rejected no matter how skilled you are.
Companies measure your level across 4 dimensions that are present across every story you tell. Scope; Impact; Difficulty; Contribution.
Your engineering team isn't burned out because they're writing too much code. They are burned out because they spend 80% of their day navigating organizational "politics", unclear specifications, and endless meetings just to deploy 10 lines of code.
I link this series to my x posts september 2026 part2 page, where I continue the discussion with deeper dives on self‑directed learning, execution habits, and the player‑coach role.
- Engineer level is judged on four dimensions: Scope, Impact, Difficulty, Contribution.
- Fit mis‑assessment leads to rejection regardless of skill.
- Burnout stems from ~80 % of the day spent in politics, vague specs, and meetings.
- PR count is a poor productivity signal; risk‑based review depth matters.
- Speed vs. quality trade‑offs vary by domain (growth startups vs. regulated sectors).
- Leaders should cancel meetings without clear purpose, decision, or discussion.
- AI can boost output 100× when used as a multiplier for value‑creating work.
- Overcommunication often provides the right amount of transparency.