What's your approach to creating growth paths for engineers at different levels?
Why This Is Asked
Interviewers want to see that you understand career progression isn't one-size-fits-all. They're assessing whether you can articulate different expectations and growth trajectories for junior, mid, senior, and staff engineers—and whether you tailor development plans accordingly.
Key Points to Cover
- Level expectations: scope, ownership, influence, and leadership at each level
- Dual tracks: technical (IC) vs. management paths, and how you help people choose
- Stretch and support: matching growth opportunities to current level and readiness
- Transparency: making criteria and paths visible so people can self-assess
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
- Reference leveling frameworks (e.g., ladder documents) if your company has them
- Show you understand that senior+ growth is often about scope and influence, not just technical skill
- Mention how you handle people who want to grow but aren't ready—support without over-promising
✍️ Example Response
STAR formatSituation: I managed a team of 14 engineers across levels—from new grads to staff. We had a career ladder, but it was vague. Juniors didn't know what "mid" looked like; seniors wondered how to reach staff. Two engineers had asked about promotion in the past year and felt unclear on the path. We also had the IC vs. management question—several people assumed management was the only "up."
Task: I needed to make growth paths transparent and tailored. I had to articulate expectations at each level, help people choose between IC and management, and support those who wanted to grow but weren't yet ready.
Action: I worked with our People team to refine the ladder. We defined scope, ownership, and influence at each level with concrete examples. I ran a team session to walk through it and created a self-assessment doc so people could see where they stood. For IC vs. management, I had explicit conversations: "What do you enjoy—deep technical work or developing people?" I framed management as a different track, not a promotion. For someone who wanted staff but wasn't ready, I mapped the gaps—e.g., "You need more cross-org influence"—and created a plan: lead a cross-team initiative, present at an engineering summit. I was honest: "You're not there yet, but here's the path." I checked in quarterly on progress. For someone who was overreaching, I gave feedback and a realistic timeline rather than false hope.
Result: We had fewer "when will I get promoted?" conversations because people understood the criteria. Two engineers chose the IC path after realizing management wasn't for them. Our promotion cycle had fewer surprises. I learned that transparency reduces anxiety—people can tolerate "not yet" if they know what "ready" looks like.
🏢 Companies Known to Ask This
| Company | Variation / Focus |
|---|---|
| Amazon | Hire & Develop the Best — "How do you help people grow?" |
| Team building, collaboration | |
| Meta | Building high-performance culture |
| Microsoft | Growth mindset, inclusion |
| Apple | Deep collaboration, mentorship within hierarchy |
| Stripe | Technical growth, building great teams |
| Professional growth, learning agility |