The new engineering manager hiring bar
The technical depth, behavioural fluency, and interview length now expected of engineering managers tells you something about how the role is changing, whether you're hiring or looking.
👋 Hey, it’s Stephane. I help engineers become great engineering managers - whether you want to become one or are already leading a team.
To accelerate your growth see:
Get Hired as an EM (CV & job search to actually get interviews)
AI Behavioral Interview Coach (the best prep for your interviews)
Paid subscribers get 50 Notion Templates, The EM’s Field Guide, and access to the complete archive.
The engineering manager role today isn’t the same as it was when most of us started. The expectations have changed in a few specific ways. If you’re preparing for an interview or designing a hiring loop, it’s worth understanding what changed.
Four things stand out.
System design rounds now expect the breadth and depth of a staff engineer. Behavioural interviews assume you’ve already rehearsed every common question. Hiring loops often stretch across four to six weeks. And AI fluency has become a near-universal topic.
Each of these signals what companies are really looking for in engineering managers today - and what they’ve learned from the managers they hired a few years ago.
The technical bar
System design used to be a warm-up in an EM interview loop. It isn’t anymore.
In most interviews I’ve seen over the past year, it’s assessed at the same level as a senior or staff engineer. Interviewers go deep on data stores, consistency trade-offs, back-of-the-envelope math, and scaling decisions. They’re not checking whether you can follow along. They’re checking whether you could lead the design yourself.
This change comes from a real problem. Many teams hired EMs who had completely let go of the technical side. Those managers struggled to weigh in on architecture decisions. They couldn’t push back on over-engineered proposals. They couldn’t coach senior engineers through difficult technical calls.
The cost showed up in growing technical debt and disengaged senior engineers.
I’ve written before about how experienced engineers lose influence when they can’t engage deeply in technical discussions. The same dynamic applies to managers. If you can’t hold the room during a technical conversation, you risk becoming a process layer instead of a leader.
If you’re hiring
Be honest about what the role actually requires.
If the job involves real technical judgment (reviewing architecture proposals, weighing platform choices, coaching senior engineers through system design) then a staff-level system design interview makes sense.
If it doesn’t, don’t run one just because the hiring template includes it. You’ll lose strong candidates to a test that doesn’t reflect the job you want to fill.
If you’re interviewing
This is one area where preparation genuinely helps.
Practice a few system design scenarios with follow-up questions. Do some back-of-the-envelope exercises to build your fluency. The goal isn’t to memorise architectures. It’s to move quickly through the standard structure so you have time left for the interesting decisions.
Behavioural rounds
The second change is more subtle.
Behavioural interviews used to reward candidates who could tell one or two strong stories with real reflection behind them. That still matters, but the volume has increased. A full interview loop now covers twelve to fifteen questions expecting very little repetition in your answers. And your answers need to follow the CARL format, backed by specific metrics.
CARL (Context, Action, Result, Learnings): the framework top interviewers use to evaluate behavioral answers.
The interview isn’t only testing whether you have experience in the role. It’s testing how you present relevant information, reason on the decisions you’ve made, understand your shortcomings, etc.
Two candidates with identical careers can perform very differently depending on how much they practice for this round.
If you’re running the interview
Pay attention to whether your behavioural rubric can distinguish between “didn’t prepare” and “hasn’t done the work”.
Most rubrics can’t.
One useful signal is to ask follow-up questions that go three layers deeper than the original story. Candidates who have rehearsed answers tend to run out of material. Candidates with real experience usually don’t.
If you’re preparing
Build a bank of around fifteen stories covering areas like conflict, delivery pressure, hiring, firing, performance management, stakeholder push-back, technical disagreement, and cross-team influence.
Then practice mapping questions to your stories until it becomes automatic.
It feels a bit mechanical because it is. But once you’ve done it, you will stop worrying about which story to tell and can focus on telling it well.
I’ve written more about why behavioural preparation is the neglected half of interview prep. I also built an AI interview coach around this exact retrieval problem after seeing it repeatedly with managers I was coaching.
Process length
Hiring loops that once took two or three weeks now often stretch to four, five, or even six.
Some of that comes down to calendar chaos. But most of it doesn’t. Companies run slow loops when the hire isn’t urgent enough to move faster, or when they’re not fully ready to hire and don’t want to say so.
For candidates, the consequence is that running interviews across different companies in parallel is more rare. The thing that used to create leverage in negotiations is now much harder.
Companies know this. Some even rely on it.
If you’re hiring
A slow process is a competitive disadvantage unless your candidate pool is extremely small.
The candidates who stay in a six-week process are often the ones with fewer options. That’s rarely the profile you’re hoping to hire.
If you want strong candidates, move faster. If you can’t, at least be transparent about the timeline so candidates can plan around it.
If you’re interviewing
Pipeline timing matters more than pipeline size.
Starting four interview processes in the same week means they’re likely to finish around the same time. Starting one process each week for four weeks usually means negotiating one offer at a time, with no leverage.
More broadly, the strongest candidates start building their network and reputation years before they need it. When the time comes to interview, the process moves much faster.
I wrote about this in more detail in a piece on landing senior leadership roles in big tech.
The signal hiding inside the questions
If an interview loop keeps circling back to questions about firing, PIPs, and managing people out, that’s usually a signal about the company, not about what makes a good manager.
Every EM needs to handle underperformance well. It’s a core skill. I’ve covered the mechanics of difficult conversations and performance management in The EM Field Guide.
But when four out of seven interviewers ask about it, they’re telling you something. The team is struggling, and they’re looking for someone to clean it up.
That might be the job you want. It might not. Either way, you’ve learned what the role actually is.
Interview processes leak information in both directions.
When you design an interview loop, it tells candidates something about your organisation. When you sit in one, it tells you something about theirs.
The questions that keep coming up are usually the real job description.
Closing thought
The hiring bar for engineering managers has changed toward hands-on, technically credible player-coaches who can also perform well under interview pressure.
That doesn’t mean every great EM role looks like this. Many don’t. But the hiring process has moved in that direction, and that’s the bar you’re measured against today.
If you’re hiring, design your interview loop to measure what the job actually requires, not what the market template suggests.
If you’re interviewing, treat preparation as a separate skill from the job itself. Drill the parts you can practice. And pay close attention to the questions companies ask you. They reveal as much about the role as your answers reveal about you.
You can’t control how long the process takes. But you can control how prepared you are when the call comes.
If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to get:
✉️ Free: 1 original post every Tuesday, my favourite posts of the week every Sunday + 10 Notion Templates for Engineering Managers
🔒 Paid: Full archive + 50+ EM templates & playbooks + The EM Field Guide
You might also like some of my most popular posts:
See you in the next one,
~ Stephane
Thank you. This is such an insightful read
Thanks for sharing!
I think technical interview is mostly the default round for EM. I've seen some rounds are the classic system design interview from scratch. Some are more conversational, where EM demonstrates their past achievement in system design or technical tasks, and interviewers dig deep into it to understand their technical skills.
But either way, it's a challenge for EM to take care of management but still keep up with the tech skills at the same time, especially in the age of AI now!