To hire for traits over background, Mark Kosaglo suggests testing for coachability directly. Run a skill-based roleplay (e.g., discovery), provide specific feedback, and then run the exact same roleplay again. The key is to see if the candidate can actually implement the coaching, not just if they are open to receiving it.

In a behavioral interview, it is more effective to select a story that demonstrates the highest possible scope and impact, even if it doesn't perfectly match the interviewer's question. Candidates should guide the interviewer towards the stories that best represent their capabilities, rather than strictly adhering to the prompt with a less impactful example.

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.

The interview process for senior roles (Staff+) at companies like Meta changes by adding more behavioral and system design rounds, not harder coding problems. For Staff, this means two system design interviews. For Principal and above, it involves additional behavioral interviews to deeply probe organizational influence and leadership.

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.

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.