Engineering Hiring Process

1. Purpose

Quickly assess cultural alignment, communication clarity, and ownership mindset. The goal is to filter early—only candidates who clearly resonate with Plei’s mission, demonstrate ownership, and show a growth mindset should advance.

2. Format

Length: 30–40 minutes (video call)
Facilitator: Leaders → Elizabeth · Non-leaders → Elena
Style: Conversational, structured, and warm. This is the candidate’s first deep impression of Plei, so balance rigor with friendliness.

3. Focus Areas & Example Questions

3.1 Mission Resonance – “Why Plei?”
We want to know if they connect to our purpose: Building Connection Through the Beautiful Game.

• Tell me what excites you most about Plei and why you want to join us.
• How do you see soccer (or sports in general) shaping communities?
• What part of our mission—connecting the world through the beautiful game—resonates with you personally?

3.2 Ownership Mindset
We want people who take end-to-end responsibility, not those who stop at “I did my part.”

• Tell me about a time when you owned a project from start to finish. What did you learn?
• Have you ever spotted a problem that wasn’t technically your responsibility but decided to fix or escalate it?
• Describe a time you failed or made a mistake. How did you handle it and what did you do next?

3.3 Growth Mindset
We want people who learn fast, adapt, and take feedback well.

• What’s a skill you’ve had to learn quickly to succeed in your role?
• Tell me about a time you received tough feedback. How did you respond?
• How do you stay up to date with new tools, frameworks, or industry changes?

3.4 Communication
We want clear communication in English (Spanish is a plus).

• Explain a complex project you’ve worked on as if I were not technical.
• Tell me about a time you had to work with a distributed or multicultural team. How did you make sure communication was clear?

4. Evaluation Framework

Pass/Fail Decision — No “maybe.”

Scoring Dimensions (1–5):

• Mission Resonance – Do they connect to Plei’s purpose?
• Ownership – Do they take responsibility beyond their role?
• Growth Mindset – Do they learn fast and adapt?
• Communication – Can they express ideas clearly in English?

5. Facilitator Flow (Suggested Timeline)

• Welcome & Set Context (3 min) — quick intro of yourself and Plei. Explain the purpose: “This call is about getting to know you better and understanding how you align with our mission and culture.”
• Candidate Introduction (5 min) — “Tell me about yourself and your journey so far.”
• Mission Resonance (5–7 min)
• Ownership (10 min)
• Growth Mindset (7 min)
• Communication (assessed throughout the call)
• Candidate Questions (3–5 min)
• Wrap Up (2 min) — explain next steps, thank them for their time.

6. Notes for Interviewer

• Write detailed notes in our ATS or shared doc immediately after the call.
• Avoid vague comments (“seems nice” or “smart”); be specific: “Owned a migration project end-to-end, handled an outage calmly, strong English.”
• Remember: The Fit Screen is about raising the bar, not just filling roles quickly.

1. Purpose

Evaluate whether the candidate has the technical/functional depth required to succeed in the role. This barrier confirms they can independently deliver value in their domain, not just shadow or depend on others.

2. Format

Length: 60–90 minutes (video or in-person).
Facilitator(s): Senior engineer, product leader, or functional expert (not the hiring manager alone).
Style: Hands-on, problem-solving session. Collaborative, but evaluative.

3. Focus Areas & Example Exercises

3.1 Core Problem-Solving
Goal: Can they break down a problem logically, make trade-offs, and reach a workable solution?

• Engineering (backend, frontend, DevOps): Design a system (API, UI, or infra component) with clear constraints. Example: “Design an API for booking soccer fields that scales for 10x traffic growth. What trade-offs would you consider?”
• ML/AI roles: Implement or describe a small RAG pipeline, or walk through how they’d evaluate an LLM-powered feature.
• QA roles: Create a test plan for a new booking workflow; automate a simple test case.

3.2 Technical/Functional Depth
Goal: Do they know their craft at a practical, applied level?

• Engineers: Clean, working code (language/framework relevant to role).
• QA: Automation frameworks, test strategies.

3.3 AI-Native Fluency (Cross-Role Check)
At Plei, AI is part of every role. We want to know if they can use AI copilots, frameworks, or workflows safely and productively.

• How have you used AI tools in your work?
• What’s one example where AI accelerated your productivity?
• How do you ensure correctness and reliability when using AI-assisted tools?

3.4 Communication & Trade-offs
Goal: Do they explain solutions clearly and discuss trade-offs?

• Can you explain your design as if to a teammate who wasn’t in this interview?
• What would you cut if you had half the time to deliver this feature?

4. Evaluation Framework

Pass/Fail Decision — Candidate must demonstrate independence in their role’s fundamentals.

Scoring Dimensions (1–5):

• Problem Decomposition – Do they break problems into clear steps?
• Technical Depth – Do they have solid fundamentals in their craft?
• AI-Native Fluency – Do they apply AI tools safely and productively?
• Trade-off Reasoning – Do they explain constraints and make rational decisions?
• Communication – Do they express solutions clearly and concisely?

5. Facilitator Flow (Suggested Timeline)

• Welcome & Context (5 min) — introduce the session as a practical problem-solving exercise. Reassure: “This isn’t about trick questions, but about how you think and solve problems.”
• Warm-Up Question (5 min) — “Tell me about a project you worked on recently that you’re proud of.”
• Core Exercise (30–40 min) — present the problem (system design, test plan, case study, etc. depending on role). Encourage clarifying questions. Observe problem-solving approach.
• AI-Native Discussion (10–15 min) — ask how they’d integrate AI tools into the exercise they just worked on.
• Trade-Off Discussion (10 min) — ask them to adapt their solution under new constraints (time, cost, traffic, etc.).
• Candidate Questions (5 min)
• Wrap-Up (2 min)

6. Notes for Interviewer

• Write notes immediately after the session. Focus on specifics (e.g., “Designed scalable API, clear assumptions, weak error handling”).
• Do not coach during the session—you’re observing, not teaching.
• Be consistent: The goal is to measure independence, not perfection.

1. Purpose

The Bar Raiser is an independent interviewer (not on the hiring team) who evaluates a candidate’s long-term performance potential and principles alignment. Their mandate is to prevent “good enough” hires. If they believe the candidate will not raise the team’s average performance, they have veto power.

2. Format

Length: 60 min deep-dive behavioral interview.
Facilitator: Leaders: Sebastian D. · Tech ICs/others: Brayan (for candidates he doesn’t know).
Style: Structured, probing, and principle-driven. Not a “get to know you” chat—this is where rigor is highest.

3. Competencies Assessed

Aligned with Plei’s engineering principles.

3.1 AI is the Interface, the Engine, and the User
Do they understand how AI changes products and workflows?

• “Tell me about a time you built or worked with an AI-powered system. What role did AI play—was it core or an add-on?”
• “How would you redesign one of your past projects if AI were the default interface?”

3.2 Ship to Learn
Do they prioritize iteration and feedback loops over perfection?

• “Describe a time you shipped something that wasn’t perfect but taught you a lot. What did you learn?”
• “How do you decide when a product or feature is ‘good enough’ to launch?”

3.3 Build with Taste and Intuition
Do they care about elegance, intentionality, and user empathy?

• “Tell me about a technical or design decision you’re proud of because it felt ‘tasteful’ or elegant. Why?”
• “How do you balance intuition vs. data when making decisions?”

3.4 Delegate to Machines, Design for Humans
Do they know what to automate vs. what to leave to people?

• “Tell me about a time you automated a process. How did you decide what should stay manual?”
• “How do you ensure that humans stay in control when AI or automation is involved?”

3.5 Systems, Not Features
Do they think in compounding, scalable systems?

• “Tell me about a system you designed that became more valuable over time.”
• “Have you ever seen a team stuck in feature-chasing mode? How would you change that?”

3.6 High Agency, Low Ego
Do they take initiative and own outcomes without arrogance?

• “Describe a time you stepped up to solve a problem that wasn’t directly your responsibility.”
• “Tell me about a disagreement where you changed your mind. What happened?”

3.7 Bias Toward Action and Ambiguity
Do they thrive in uncertain, fast-moving situations?

• “Tell me about a time you had to move forward with incomplete information. What did you do?”
• “What’s the biggest bet you’ve made without full certainty?”

3.8 Work as Product
Do they treat their work artifacts (docs, code, processes) like products?

• “Tell me about a piece of work (a doc, PR, dashboard, etc.) that you put extra effort into making clear and usable for others.”
• “How do you improve the way your team works, not just the product itself?”

3.9 Global Talent, Local Impact
Do they respect diverse perspectives and build for global scale?

• “Have you worked with teams or users from different backgrounds or regions? What did you learn?”
• “How do you balance building for global scale with adapting to local needs?”

3.10 Engineering as Creative Expression
Do they see engineering as craft, not just execution?

• “What’s the most creative or unconventional solution you’ve ever implemented?”
• “Tell me about a time you built something experimental or ‘weird.’ What did you learn?”

4. Evaluation Framework

Pass/Fail Decision — No “maybes.”

Scoring Dimensions (1–5):

• Bias for Action
• Customer Obsession
• Invent & Simplify
• Highest Standards
• Learn & Be Curious
• Deliver Results

5. Facilitator Flow (Suggested Timeline)

• Welcome & Context (5 min) — explain: “This session is about understanding how you think, act, and grow—how you’ve demonstrated leadership principles in the past.”
• Deep-Dive Behavioral Questions (45 min) — use STAR format (Situation, Task, Action, Result). Probe deeply: ask follow-ups like “What specifically did you do?” or “What would you do differently?”
• Candidate Questions (5–7 min) — give them space to ask—this shows curiosity and depth.
• Wrap-Up (2 min) — thank them, explain next steps.

6. Notes for Interviewer

• Be tough but fair: This is where we say no to strong “maybe” candidates.
• Focus on specific behaviors (not opinions). Write notes like “Took ownership of outage postmortem, simplified monitoring, delivered fix in 2 days.”
• Look for patterns across stories, not isolated good/bad examples.
• Remember: Your job is to raise the average bar of the company.

1. Purpose

Evaluate how candidates adapt in ambiguous, changing, and high-pressure environments. At Plei, we need people who can remain calm, prioritize effectively, collaborate under stress, and find creative solutions within real-world constraints.

2. Format

Length: 45–60 minutes.
Facilitator: Stefano.
Method: Simulation exercise or role play, tailored to role.
Engineering candidates: Debugging a production incident + introducing a sudden priority shift mid-task.

3. Evaluation Focus

• Composure: Do they stay calm and structured under pressure?
• Prioritization: Can they decide what matters most when everything feels urgent?
• Collaboration under pressure: Do they communicate effectively and align with others, or do they panic and isolate?
• Creativity within constraints: Do they find pragmatic, original solutions with limited time/data?

4. Decision Rule

Candidate must handle ambiguity with structure and calm. If they freeze, get defensive, or panic, they fail. If they adapt, prioritize, and move forward constructively, they pass.

5. Guide for Conducting This Meeting

5.1 Set Context (5 min)

• Welcome candidate.
• Explain: “This session is about how you respond in real-world, high-pressure situations. There’s no perfect answer—we want to see how you think and adapt.”
• Reassure: “We’re not testing if you know everything, but how you navigate ambiguity.”

5.2 Scenario Simulation (25–30 min)

Example for Engineers:

• Start: “You’re on-call. Production error alerts go off—users can’t book matches.”
• Let them walk through debugging steps (logs, monitoring, rollback, comms).
• Midway: Add curveball. “While you’re fixing this, the product manager escalates a new priority: pricing API also broke during the outage. What do you do first?”

Scenario 1 – Staging Outage Before Release

Setup (Candidate is given context): “It’s 9pm, the team is preparing a release for tomorrow morning. Suddenly, staging goes down, and QA can’t run critical regression tests. Leadership is pushing to release on schedule.”

Instructions:

• Ask the candidate: “How do you approach this situation? Walk me through what you’d check first, how you’d communicate, and whether you’d release or not.”
• Midway: Throw in a twist → “While you’re investigating staging, you notice production error logs are spiking as well.”

Scenario 2 – Cost Explosion Alert

Setup (Candidate is told): “Monitoring alerts show that cloud costs have doubled overnight due to a runaway service (e.g., excessive API calls or a loop in a batch job). Product is insisting we can’t turn it off because it powers a new feature that’s live.”

Instructions:

• Ask: “What do you do first? How do you handle the trade-off between cost containment and feature availability?”
• Twist: “The CFO joins the call and says costs must be reduced within the next 2 hours.”

Scenario 3 – Conflicting Priorities in Incident Response

Setup (Context): “You’re debugging a live outage (users can’t log in). Midway, the product manager insists that fixing the payment system, which has been broken for 24 hours, should take priority.”

Instructions:

• Ask: “How do you decide what to do first? What information would you gather, and how would you communicate your decision to stakeholders?”

5.3 Debrief & Reflection (10–15 min)

Ask:

• “What was your thought process when priorities shifted?”
• “How did you decide what to do first?”
• “Looking back, what would you have done differently?”

6. Scoring Dimensions (1–5 scale each)

• Composure: Do they stay calm, structured, confident?
• Prioritization: Can they separate urgent vs. important?
• Collaboration: Do they explain clearly, bring others along, not panic?
• Creativity: Do they find workable solutions within the constraints?
• Learning Reflex: Do they reflect on what to improve next time?

7. Notes for Interviewer

• Do not rescue them—let them sit in ambiguity. How they handle discomfort is the test.
• Probe decision-making: ask “Why did you choose that first?”
• Take detailed notes on behaviors, not just outcomes: “Stayed calm, communicated trade-offs, chose rollback before adding monitoring.”
• Evaluate how they think, not just what they say.

1. Purpose

Confirm that candidates embody Plei’s leadership principles, can influence beyond their role, and have the capacity to grow into broader impact. This is the stage where we validate long-term leadership potential, not just technical or functional skills.

2. Format

Length: 2–3 short interviews (30–40 min each).
Interviewers: Future peers + cross-functional stakeholders (rotating: Alejandro, Michele, Blake, Jonathan/Monty, etc.).
Style: Conversational, behavioral deep dives. Each interviewer owns 1–2 principles to probe deeply.
Decision: Consensus required. Any strong “no” from a panelist is a block.

3. Focus Areas (Framed by Plei’s Principles)

Strategic Thinking – Can they connect today’s tasks to long-term vision and systems?

• Q: “Tell me about a time you had to make a short-term trade-off to enable a bigger long-term win.”

Coaching & Elevating Others (High Agency, Low Ego)

• Q: “Tell me about a time you helped someone level up. How did you coach them?”

Challenging the Status Quo (Bias Toward Action + Work as Product)

• Q: “Describe a time you challenged an existing process or decision. How did you do it, and what was the outcome?”

Articulating Trade-offs (Systems, Not Features)

• Q: “Tell me about a time you had to explain a complex trade-off to both technical and non-technical stakeholders.”

4. Evaluation Framework

Scoring Dimensions (1–5):

• Strategic Thinking
• Coaching & Elevation of Others
• Challenging the Status Quo
• Trade-off Communication

5. Facilitator Flow

Panel Prep (Before Interview)

• Assign each panelist 2 leadership principles to focus on.
• Ensure no overlap; each principle is tested deeply.

Candidate Session (30–40 min each)

• Welcome candidate, explain purpose: “We want to understand how you lead and influence beyond your role.”
• Use STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result) probing.
• Follow up with: “What would you do differently next time?”

Panel Debrief (Post-Interview)

• Each interviewer shares evidence tied to principles.
• No opinions (“I liked them”); only behaviors observed.
• Consensus decision required.

6. Notes for Interviewers

• This stage isn’t about whether the candidate can do the job today—that’s already tested. It’s about whether they’ll raise Plei’s leadership bar long-term.
• Probe until you get specifics. If answers are vague, push: “What exactly did you do? What was the measurable outcome?”
• Look for patterns across stories, not isolated hero moments.