Behavioural questions are really asking one thing: how do you get things done when nobody has to listen to you?
Ten items. Work through the activities and say your answer out loud before you reveal it.
Three terms: escalate · push back · align. Say the right one, then reveal.
A composite scene, built for teaching: the people and figures are invented, but the pattern is one that senior people describe again and again.
A programme director is given six months to launch a customer reporting platform. The work depends on three functions — engineering, finance and operations — and none of them reports to her. She has a mandate from the chief executive, a sponsor, and a budget of about two million euros.
She spends the first two weeks writing an excellent plan: milestones, owners, dependencies. At the kick-off she presents it and asks for questions. Engineering says it cannot commit to the dates. Finance says the budget was approved for a different scope. Operations says nothing at all, which is worse.
Three weeks in, the project is behind a plan that nobody believes in. Her sponsor asks her, gently, whether she needs “more authority”. She thinks for a moment and says no.
1. What did the programme director have, and what did she lack?
2. Why was operations’ silence a worse sign than the objections of the other two?
1. She had a mandate, a sponsor and a budget of about two million euros, but none of the three functions reported to her.
2. Open objections can be negotiated; silence means the function has not accepted the plan and will quietly not deliver it.
Over the next ten days she sits down with each function separately and asks the same three questions: What are you measured on? What would make this project a problem for you? What would make it a win? She learns that finance is measured on cost control and does not care about the launch date; engineering is measured on stability and dreads a rushed release; operations is measured on customer complaints and is afraid of being blamed for every defect.
She rewrites the plan with the three functions, not for them. Each lead proposes their own milestones. They agree a single target: no increase in customer complaints, delivery within the budget, and a stable release. She builds one weekly dashboard that shows all three measures, and she insists that every meeting begins with it.
Within a month, the dates that engineering “could not commit to” have become engineering’s own dates. Nothing about her formal authority has changed.
1. What three questions did she ask each function, and what did she learn?
2. What single change made the dates become engineering’s own?
1. What are you measured on, what would make this a problem, and what would make it a win. Finance is measured on cost control, engineering on stability, operations on complaints.
2. She rewrote the plan with the functions, so each lead proposed their own milestones and owned them.
In month three, finance and engineering clash. Engineering wants two more features before the release; finance says they will cost 8% more than the approved budget. Both leads escalate to her within the same hour, each assuming she will take their side.
She calls each lead separately, then both together. She does not decide. She asks the sponsor’s question instead: which of the two features would a customer actually miss? They agree to cut one feature and defer the other. She raises the decision with the sponsor only to record it.
The platform launches two weeks early and about 8% under budget. The client extends the contract by a year. But the head of operations tells a colleague that the project felt “run by a spreadsheet”, and she is not invited to the next programme. Was the cost worth it?
1. How did she resolve the clash between finance and engineering?
2. What was the cost she paid, despite the successful launch?
1. She asked which of the two features a customer would actually miss; they agreed to cut one and defer the other, and she told the sponsor only to record the decision.
2. The head of operations felt the project was “run by a spreadsheet”, and she was not invited to the next programme.
A strong leadership story is a chain of cause and effect, and the grammar of that chain is what separates a senior answer from a list of tasks.
Complete each sentence with one or two words.
“I met each function separately nobody felt ambushed in the room.”
“We cut one feature, meant we stayed under budget.”
“I introduced a single dashboard to keep all three measures visible.”
“We agreed the dates in a week, in an earlier launch.”
so that · which · in order · resulting
Remember the comma before “which” and “resulting in” when they refer back to the whole idea.
Put the verb in brackets into the correct form to complete the participle clause.
“ the dependencies, I could sequence the work so that nothing waited for a decision that nobody owned.”
“ a finished plan, I rebuilt it with the three functions.”
“ to each lead, I realised that finance cared about cost, not dates.”
Having mapped · Rather than presenting · Having listened
“Having + past participle” shows that the first action was completed before the second. “Rather than + -ing” contrasts what you did with what you might have done.
A panel asks: “Tell me about a time you led people over whom you had no authority.” Complete the answer.
“I was for a platform launch that depended on three functions, none of which reported to me. presenting a plan, I asked each lead what they were measured on, the plan would support their targets. agreed one target, we built a weekly dashboard. We launched two weeks early, meant the client extended its contract.”
accountable · Rather than · so that · Having · which
Notice the story’s chain: accountability → method → purpose → result. Each connector earns its place.
Take these into the Speak tab: you will use exactly this language under time pressure.
This is a composite scene, so there is no real balance sheet to check. What follows is the argument about what a leadership question actually tests.
Most senior panels score on the same five things, whatever the question. You will use this scorecard to mark your own mock interview in the Speak tab.
| Criterion | What the panel is listening for |
|---|---|
| Structure | The listener can follow the shape of the answer (headline, steps, result). |
| Evidence | A specific example, with a number, instead of a general claim. |
| Ownership | It is clear what I personally decided or did, and what the team did. |
| Relevance | It connects to the role and the organisation I am talking to. |
| Delivery | Calm pace, no long fillers, finished within the time. |
Panels use leadership questions to look for three things: whether you can diagnose what people need, whether you can choose an intervention rather than follow a formula, and whether you can own a result you did not control. Most weak answers describe effort; strong ones describe decisions.
In a hierarchy, authority lets you skip the question “why would they do this?”. Without it you must answer that question for each person. Seen this way, influence without authority is not a soft skill: it is the discipline of understanding what each person is measured on, rewarded for and afraid of.
The generous reading: she built commitment, so the result was robust and the team would work again. The sceptical reading: the head of operations felt managed; a project can succeed and still leave people resentful. A senior answer admits the cost without apology.
All of it out loud, against the clock. These are the rooms in which a senior leader has to explain a decision: upwards, sideways, down and out.
Decide before you click, and say why.
A leadership story has three parts. Choose one real example, write your own words in each part, then compare with a model.
“Tell me about a time you led a cross-functional team through a difficult project.”
Situation and task: “A client needed a new reporting platform in five months, and the work depended on engineering, finance and operations, none of whom reported to me. I was accountable for delivery and for keeping the three groups aligned.”
Actions: “First, I met each function separately to understand its constraints. Then I agreed one shared goal and a single weekly dashboard. When engineering and finance disagreed on scope, I raised it privately with both leads and we agreed to cut two features and protect the deadline.”
Result and reflection: “We delivered two weeks early and 8% under budget, and the client extended the contract by a year. In hindsight, I would have brought operations in a month earlier.”
Notice: roughly 20% situation, 50% actions, 30% result. The actions use “I” and the result uses numbers.
Close your notes and give the answer aloud in about two minutes. Then give it again with one improvement.
Fill in your own details, then answer whatever the cards give you. Draw a question, answer it, then draw a follow-up.
A key dependency has failed and the launch will slip by three weeks. Say it four ways, one minute each. Notice what you add and what you leave out.
Prefer a different situation? Take one of these instead:
A panel member says: “Every example you have given starts with ‘I’. How do I know you can build a team that works without you?”
Answer properly: concede what is fair, show where credit belongs to others, and give one example of a decision you let someone else take. Then do it again in ninety seconds.
Six questions in a random order, as in a real interview. Use the timer for each answer, give each one two minutes at most, and do not stop to correct yourself. Score yourself at the end.
Choose the three you find hardest. Prepare a structure for each, then answer them aloud.