Give an example of a time when you had to manage competing priorities.
Why This Is Asked
Interviewers want to see how you make trade-offs when you can't do everything. They're looking for your prioritization framework, ability to communicate with stakeholders, and willingness to say no or negotiate scope—rather than overcommitting and burning out the team.
Key Points to Cover
- How you assessed and ranked priorities (impact, urgency, dependencies)
- How you communicated trade-offs to stakeholders and got alignment
- How you protected your team from being pulled in too many directions
- What you deprioritized or deferred, and how you managed expectations
STAR Method Answer Template
Describe the context - what was happening, what team/company, what was at stake
What was your specific responsibility or challenge?
What specific steps did you take? Be detailed about YOUR actions
What was the outcome? Use metrics where possible. What did you learn?
💡 Tips
- Be specific about the competing priorities—don't give a generic answer
- Show that you involved stakeholders in the trade-off conversation
- Emphasize that you made a clear decision rather than trying to do everything poorly
✍️ Example Response
STAR formatSituation: I led a platform team at a Series B company. We had three competing demands: a critical security remediation (regulatory deadline in 8 weeks), a major product feature the CEO had promised to a key customer (6 weeks), and foundational tech debt that was causing weekly incidents. We had capacity for maybe two of the three.
Task: I needed to prioritize, get alignment, and protect the team from being pulled in three directions.
Action: I built a trade-off matrix: impact, urgency, risk of delay, and dependencies. I scheduled a meeting with the CEO, VP Product, and our security lead. I presented the options clearly: "We can do two of these well, or all three poorly. Here's my recommendation: security first (non-negotiable), then the customer feature with a reduced scope, tech debt in the next quarter." I proposed a phased scope for the feature—MVP in 6 weeks, full scope in 10. The CEO pushed back initially. I shared the data: our velocity, incident frequency, and the cost of context-switching. We agreed on the phased approach. I communicated the decision to the team and shielded them from ad-hoc requests.
Result: We delivered security on time, the customer feature (MVP) in 6 weeks, and tech debt in the following quarter. Zero regulatory issues. I learned that saying no requires data, stakeholder alignment, and a clear recommendation—not just a list of options.
🏢 Companies Known to Ask This
| Company | Variation / Focus |
|---|---|
| Amazon | Bias for Action, Deliver Results — "Tell me about a time you managed competing priorities" |
| Navigating ambiguity, prioritization | |
| Meta | Moving fast, impact at scale |
| Microsoft | Execution under pressure |
| Stripe | Moving fast in ambiguity |
| Uber | Ownership, entrepreneurship |