In a rapidly changing environment, adaptability ('malleability') is key. To get past rehearsed answers about work projects, ask candidates to describe personal changes they've made in their own lives. This reveals their genuine capacity for self-reflection and adaptation.

Senior candidates are scrutinized for their role in creating problems. When discussing challenges like technical debt, they must 'think defensively' and provide context for why those issues arose (e.g., startup pressures). Failing to do so can lead interviewers to an uncharitable interpretation where the candidate is blamed for the problem they claim to have solved.

At Meta, an interviewer's stated confidence in their hiring decision correlates more strongly with a candidate's future on-the-job performance than the raw interview feedback. This suggests that calibrated interviewers develop an intuitive 'gut check' that captures a candidate's potential for success beyond the formal rubric.

For senior engineering candidates at Meta, the hiring committee's first point of review is the behavioral interview, not the technical one. This interview is the primary tool used to assess a candidate's scope, influence, and organizational impact, which are the key differentiators for senior and staff levels.

Instead of asking hypothetical questions, present senior candidates with a real, complex problem your business is currently facing. The worst case is free consulting; the best case is finding someone who can implement the solution they devise.

Big tech companies use a clear hierarchy of ambiguity to define engineering levels. New Grads handle tasks, Mid-Levels own features, Seniors manage projects, Staff are responsible for goals, and Principals oversee entire organizations. This framework clarifies expectations for both interview performance and on-the-job impact.

For high-level leadership roles, skip hypothetical case studies. Instead, present candidates with your company's actual, current problems. The worst-case scenario is free, high-quality consulting. The best case is finding someone who can not only devise a solution but also implement it, making the interview process far more valuable.

Ineffective interviews try to catch candidates failing. A better approach models a collaborative rally: see how they handle challenging questions and if they can return the ball effectively. The goal is to simulate real-world problem-solving, not just grill them under pressure.

Senior executives are, by definition, excellent at interviewing, making the process unreliable for signal. Instead of relying on a polished performance, ask to see the 360-degree performance reviews from their previous company. This provides a more honest, ground-truth assessment of their strengths and weaknesses.