A candidate who can explain every decision perfectly may be well prepared. A candidate who claims never to have changed a technical opinion deserves a follow-up question. Engineering involves incomplete information, competing constraints, and colleagues who notice things we miss.
The armored expert in our illustration represents certainty that cannot admit a correction. An interview should help distinguish confidence grounded in reasoning from confidence protected against evidence.
Ask for an actual decision
Try asking: “Tell me about a technical decision you changed after someone challenged it. What evidence changed your view?” Give the candidate room to choose a relevant example and explain the context.
Then explore the original reasoning. What made the first approach reasonable? What did the other person identify? How did the candidate compare the alternatives? What happened after the decision changed?
The aim is not to reward a dramatic confession. A modest adjustment with clear reasoning can reveal more than an impressive story with no verifiable sequence of decisions.
Use a consistent evaluation structure
The US Office of Personnel Management's structured-interview guidance recommends a structured approach to assessing job-related competencies. Our suggested question is an editorial example, not a validated OPM assessment item.
Define the relevant behaviors before interviews begin. You might look for an explanation of constraints, a fair account of another person's argument, evidence used to reconsider, and an understanding of the outcome. Use consistent core questions and scoring criteria across candidates.
Do not turn one story into a complete assessment. Combine it with technical work relevant to the role and other evidence of collaboration. A polished humility story can be rehearsed just as easily as a confident technical answer.
Distinguish flexibility from lack of conviction
Changing a decision is not automatically good judgment. Ask why the new evidence mattered and what would have justified retaining the original approach. A candidate who accepts every challenge without analysis may struggle just as much as someone who rejects every objection.
Look for the ability to hold a position while remaining open to information. Good technical disagreement can end with either a changed plan or a better explanation of why the plan should remain.
Be careful about style. A quieter explanation, a different accent, or unfamiliar terminology should not substitute for assessing the underlying reasoning. Clarify when necessary and keep the role's real communication requirements explicit.
Connect the assessment to the working environment
Tell candidates how your team makes decisions. Who reviews important tradeoffs? Where are assumptions recorded? How can someone raise a concern after work has started? Hiring for thoughtful disagreement makes little sense if the eventual team punishes it.
EnzRossi screens technical and soft skills because the work requires both. We help US companies add senior LATAM talent and broader product and engineering support. Discuss the judgment your next role needs. A strong hire should be able to explain a sound decision—and recognize when the evidence supports a better one.
