Interview questions in Agile & Scrum, page 13
How should an EM facilitate reviews in a self-organizing team?
Tests separating feedback from pay, replacing individual ratings with systemic coaching. Cover: framing reviews as career development, biweekly 1:1s for meta-coaching, team raise pools, and obstacle removal. Red flag: stack ranking or hero worship.
How do you manage performance in a self-organizing team?
This tests your ability to shift from individual performance management to fostering team-based career development. A great answer reframes the goal, uses frequent 1-on-1s for coaching, and decouples raises from feedback.
How to manage performance reviews in self-organizing agile teams?
This tests your servant leadership mindset. Reframe "performance management" as "career development," use frequent 1-on-1s for coaching and obstacle removal, and separate compensation from feedback. Red flag: focusing on individual metrics or stack ranking.
Describe the difference between feature and component teams
Tests your grasp of how team structure affects value flow. A strong answer contrasts vertical slices with component ownership, noting feature teams shorten feedback while component teams create handoffs. Red flag: treating either as universally better.
Feature teams vs. component teams: pros and cons?
Tests your grasp of how team structure impacts value delivery. Define feature (vertical slice) and component (horizontal) teams. Contrast speed vs. reusability. Red flag: Calling one 'good' and the other 'bad' without discussing trade-offs.
Feature Teams vs. Component Teams: Pros and Cons
This tests your grasp of how team structure affects value delivery. A great answer defines feature (vertical slice, end-to-end) and component (horizontal, specialized) teams, then contrasts their trade-offs: speed vs. deep expertise.
Compare SAFe and LeSS from an engineer's view
Tests whether you see scaling frameworks as workflow design choices. Answers contrast SAFe's PI planning and RTE-managed dependencies with LeSS's single Sprint planning and team-driven resolution. Red flag: calling them interchangeable without citing autonomy.
SAFe vs. LeSS: Planning, Dependencies, and Autonomy
Tests your grasp of the trade-offs between coordination and autonomy in scaling frameworks. A good answer contrasts SAFe's top-down PI Planning with LeSS's bottom-up, team-focused approach.
SAFe vs. LeSS: Planning, Dependencies, and Autonomy
This tests your grasp of how org structure affects engineering work. Contrast SAFe's top-down, prescriptive nature (central PI planning) with LeSS's bottom-up, team-centric model (direct dependency management). A red flag is reciting buzzwords without context.
Why is velocity as a primary KPI destructive, and what's better?
This tests if you see velocity as a planning gauge, not a performance metric. A strong answer notes points are subjective, cites Goldratt on gaming, and proposes team-driven improvement instead. A red flag is claiming velocity works if averaged over time.
Why is team velocity a poor KPI for agile success?
Tests your grasp of agile principles and Goodhart's Law. Explain velocity is for forecasting, not performance. Detail dysfunctions like point inflation and ignoring quality. Propose outcome-focused alternatives like cycle time.
Why is tracking team velocity as a KPI dysfunctional?
Tests if you know velocity is for planning, not performance. Explain it's easily gamed and measures output, not outcome. Propose metrics focused on value delivery and process improvement like cycle time.
How would you apply Conway's Law to design team structures for microservices?
Map bounded contexts to cross-functional teams; use APIs as contracts; split by decoupling boundary.
How would you apply Conway's Law to design team structures?
This tests applying organizational theory to technical strategy. A great answer defines the law, explains the 'Inverse Conway Maneuver' by structuring teams around business capabilities, and avoids imposing an architecture without changing team structure…
How to apply Conway's Law to design team structures?
Tests if you can use Conway's Law proactively (the 'Inverse Conway Maneuver'). Outline: define the target architecture, then align small, autonomous teams to its components. A red flag is seeing the law only as a constraint, not a tool for intentional design.
Trade-offs: product teams vs project teams and funding model impacts
This tests funding impact on architecture. Contrast temporary project teams funded by scope versus product teams funded by problems; tie rolling budgets to ownership and refactoring. Red flag: claiming agile ceremonies fix org design while ignoring funding.
Trade-offs: Product-Based vs. Project-Based Teams
This tests your grasp of how funding models impact team ownership and code quality. Contrast project (temporary, build-only) vs. product (durable, continuous) teams, linking the latter to better knowledge retention and architecture.
Trade-offs: Product-Oriented vs. Project-Oriented Teams
This tests your understanding of how team structure and funding models impact long-term software quality. A great answer contrasts temporary, scope-funded project teams with durable, problem-funded product teams, highlighting the latter's benefits for…
Two senior developers clash on implementation, derailing sprint planning. Your role?
Park or timebox the debate, reframe positions into shared interests with structured dialogue, and drive to a decision or spike.
How do you resolve a heated technical debate between two developers?
Tests your ability to facilitate conflict, moving a team from argument to a structured decision. A great answer involves de-escalating, using a technique like conflict mapping to understand the core issue, and guiding the team to a resolution.
We are hiring for this. Every open role lists the topics its interview covers, so you can prepare for the real thing rather than guessing.
See open roles