Scrolls
5 min read
On this page

Leadership Principles & Values

Every major tech company has a set of values or leadership principles that shape how they evaluate candidates. Amazon has 16 Leadership Principles. Google evaluates "Googleyness." Meta looks for people who "move fast" and "focus on impact." These are not motivational posters. They are rubrics. Interviewers are trained to evaluate your answers against them. Understanding these frameworks — and how to align your stories without faking it — is a concrete competitive advantage.

Why Companies Use Principles

Behavioral interviews are inherently subjective. Two interviewers can hear the same answer and reach different conclusions. Leadership principles reduce this variance by giving interviewers a shared framework. Instead of asking "Did I like this candidate?" the interviewer asks "Did this candidate demonstrate Customer Obsession?"

This means two things for you. First, your answers are evaluated against specific criteria whether you know it or not. Second, if you know the criteria, you can ensure your stories hit the right notes.

Amazon's Leadership Principles

Amazon's 16 LPs are the most explicitly used evaluation framework in tech hiring. Every behavioral question at Amazon maps to one or two specific LPs, and the interviewer has a scorecard for each one.

The 16 Principles

1.  Customer Obsession         - Start with the customer, work backward
2.  Ownership                  - Think long-term, act on behalf of the company
3.  Invent and Simplify        - Expect innovation, find ways to simplify
4.  Are Right, A Lot           - Good judgment, seek diverse perspectives
5.  Learn and Be Curious       - Never stop learning
6.  Hire and Develop the Best  - Raise the performance bar
7.  Insist on the Highest Standards - Relentlessly high standards
8.  Think Big                  - Bold direction that inspires results
9.  Bias for Action            - Speed matters, calculated risk-taking
10. Frugality                  - Do more with less
11. Earn Trust                 - Listen, speak candidly, treat others respectfully
12. Dive Deep                  - Stay connected to details, audit frequently
13. Have Backbone; Disagree and Commit - Challenge then commit
14. Deliver Results            - Focus on inputs, deliver with quality
15. Strive to be Earth's Best Employer - Work environment, empathy
16. Success and Scale Bring Broad Responsibility - Start each day determined to be better

How Amazon Interviews Use LPs

Each interviewer in your loop is assigned 2-3 LPs to evaluate. They will ask questions designed to probe those specific principles. If you are asked "Tell me about a time you made a decision without all the data," the interviewer is scoring Bias for Action.

Mapping Your Stories to Amazon LPs

Story: Deploy pipeline optimization
  Maps to: Bias for Action (volunteered without being asked)
           Dive Deep (profiled before optimizing)
           Deliver Results (measurable improvement)
           Insist on the Highest Standards (would not accept 45-min deploys)

Story: Disagreed with manager on build vs buy
  Maps to: Have Backbone; Disagree and Commit (pushed back with data)
           Are Right, A Lot (used structured comparison)
           Earn Trust (respected the other perspective)

Story: Service boundary redesign failure
  Maps to: Learn and Be Curious (learned from the mistake)
           Ownership (took responsibility for the rework)
           Customer Obsession (poor boundaries affected team velocity,
           which affected feature delivery to customers)

For Amazon interviews specifically, write out which LPs each of your stories demonstrates. Make sure every LP is covered by at least one story.

Google's Evaluation Framework

Google does not publish a formal list like Amazon, but the behavioral evaluation focuses on four areas:

1. Googleyness and Leadership
   - Comfort with ambiguity
   - Collaborative nature
   - Willingness to push back respectfully
   - Bias toward action
   - Treating people well

2. General Cognitive Ability
   - How you learn and adapt
   - Problem decomposition in unfamiliar domains
   - Structured thinking

3. Role-Related Knowledge
   - Technical expertise for the level
   - Domain experience relevant to the role

4. Leadership
   - Not positional authority
   - Influencing, organizing, driving outcomes
   - Emerges at every level, not just management

What "Googleyness" Actually Means

It is not a personality test. It is a set of observable behaviors:

- Do you bring others along or steamroll them?
- When you disagree, do you use data or authority?
- When things are ambiguous, do you freeze or move forward?
- Do you give credit to others?
- Are you humble about what you do not know?

The anti-pattern Google watches for is the brilliant jerk — technically excellent but toxic to work with. Your stories should demonstrate both competence and collaboration.

Adapting Stories for Google

Emphasize collaboration, intellectual humility, and structured thinking. Google interviewers respond well to:

"I was not sure about the right approach, so I talked to three
people with different perspectives before making a recommendation."

"I built a quick prototype to test my hypothesis rather than
debating it in the abstract."

"The other engineer's approach was actually better for the latency
requirements. I advocated for their design over mine."

Meta's Core Values

Meta's behavioral evaluation centers on a few core themes:

1. Move Fast         - Bias toward shipping, iterate quickly
2. Focus on Impact   - Work on what matters most
3. Be Bold           - Take risks, accept failure
4. Be Open           - Transparent communication, feedback culture
5. Build Social Value - Consider broader impact (this one is newer)

What Meta Interviews Emphasize

Meta's behavioral bar is focused on impact and speed. Interviewers want stories where you:

- Shipped something quickly and iterated based on feedback
- Made a prioritization decision that maximized impact
- Took a calculated risk that paid off (or failed and you learned)
- Gave or received direct feedback that changed an outcome
- Chose the 80% solution over the 100% solution to move faster

Adapting Stories for Meta

Frame outcomes in terms of impact. Meta interviewers care less about technical elegance and more about "did it move the needle?"

Less compelling at Meta:
  "I refactored the codebase to improve code quality."

More compelling at Meta:
  "I refactored the codebase which unblocked three teams from
  shipping features, resulting in 2 new product launches that
  quarter that drove 15% user growth."

The refactoring is the same. The framing connects it to business impact.

Aligning Without Faking It

The danger of studying leadership principles is that candidates start performing rather than communicating. They pepper their answers with buzzwords: "I was being customer obsessed when I..." This sounds artificial and interviewers detect it instantly.

How to Align Authentically

Step 1: Study the company's principles.
Step 2: For each principle, ask: "When have I naturally
        demonstrated this?" Most people have — they just
        never framed it in those terms.
Step 3: Reframe the story to highlight the alignment.
        Do not change the facts. Change the emphasis.

Example: The Same Story for Different Companies

Story: You noticed that customer support tickets about a feature were increasing. Without being asked, you analyzed the tickets, identified the root cause (a confusing UI flow), proposed a fix, got it approved, and shipped it. Tickets dropped 70%.

For Amazon (Customer Obsession + Bias for Action):
  "I noticed customer support tickets about feature X were
  spiking. I pulled the data, categorized the top complaints,
  and found that 60% traced to a confusing step in the onboarding
  flow. I built a prototype fix over a weekend, demoed it to the
  product team on Monday, and we shipped it within the week.
  Tickets dropped 70% in two weeks."

For Google (Googleyness + Initiative):
  "I noticed customer support tickets were increasing and wanted
  to understand why. I paired with a support engineer to shadow
  ticket triage for an afternoon — something I had never done
  before. That gave me context I could not get from data alone.
  I proposed a fix to the product team, we refined it together,
  and shipped it. Tickets dropped 70%."

For Meta (Move Fast + Focus on Impact):
  "I saw support tickets spiking and estimated the issue was
  costing us 200 hours of support time per month. I built the
  simplest possible fix — just reordering two steps in the flow —
  and shipped it behind a feature flag in three days. After
  confirming the 70% drop in tickets, we rolled it to 100% of
  users."

Same story. Same facts. Different emphasis. Amazon hears customer obsession and speed. Google hears curiosity and collaboration. Meta hears velocity and impact. None of it is fabricated.

The Failure Question

"Tell me about a time you failed" is universal across companies, and it is where most candidates struggle. Here is what each company is actually asking:

Amazon: Did you take Ownership of the failure? Did you Dive Deep
        into the root cause? Did you Learn and Be Curious about
        preventing it?

Google: Are you intellectually honest? Can you analyze your own
        mistakes with the same rigor you analyze technical problems?

Meta:   Did you fail because you were being Bold (good) or because
        you were being careless (bad)? Did you move fast to
        recover?

What a Good Failure Answer Looks Like

1. A real failure, not a humble brag
   Bad:  "I worked too hard and burned out a little."
   Good: "I made an architecture decision that cost the team
         two months of rework."

2. Your role in the failure, not external blame
   Bad:  "The requirements kept changing."
   Good: "I should have pushed back on the timeline given the
         ambiguity, but I committed to a date I could not hit."

3. Specific consequences
   Bad:  "It did not go well."
   Good: "We missed the launch window by six weeks, which meant
         we shipped after our competitor."

4. A real lesson you applied afterward
   Bad:  "I learned to communicate better."
   Good: "I now write a one-page risk assessment for any project
         over two weeks. I explicitly call out assumptions and
         identify what could invalidate them."

The interviewer is not judging the failure. They are judging your self-awareness, accountability, and capacity to learn. A thoughtful, honest failure story is more impressive than a polished success story.

Company Research

Before your interview, do this research:

1. Read the company's published values or leadership principles.
   These are on the careers page or in blog posts.

2. Read Glassdoor interview questions for your role.
   You will see which principles come up most often.

3. Talk to current or former employees if possible.
   Ask: "Which values actually matter in day-to-day decisions?"

4. Map your story bank to the company's framework.
   Ensure every key principle is covered.

5. Practice telling your stories with the company's framing.
   Do not change the facts. Adjust emphasis and vocabulary.

Beyond the Big Three

Other companies have their own frameworks. Some examples:

Microsoft:  Growth Mindset (Carol Dweck influenced)
Stripe:     Rigor, craft, user focus
Netflix:    Freedom and Responsibility, context over control
Airbnb:     "Be a Host" — empathy and belonging
Apple:      Product obsession, secrecy, craft

Even if a company does not have published principles, every company has a culture. Research it. The behavioral interview is where culture fit is evaluated, and showing you understand the company's values — without pandering — sets you apart.

Common Pitfalls

  • Name-dropping principles. "I was being customer obsessed when..." sounds rehearsed. Let the story speak for itself. The interviewer knows which principle they are evaluating.
  • Treating all companies the same. Amazon cares about ownership and customer obsession. Google cares about collaboration and humility. Meta cares about speed and impact. Same stories, different framing.
  • Fake failure stories. "I cared too much" and "I was too ambitious" are not failures. Share a real mistake with real consequences. The interviewer has heard every deflection.
  • Ignoring the principles entirely. Some candidates refuse to "play the game." But the principles are the evaluation rubric. Ignoring them is like ignoring the grading criteria on an exam.
  • Over-indexing on one principle. If every story is about "moving fast," you look one-dimensional. Demonstrate range across the company's values.
  • Sounding like the company's website. Do not recite principles back. Demonstrate them through specific examples from your own experience.

Key Takeaways

  • Leadership principles are evaluation rubrics. Interviewers score your answers against them. Knowing the rubric is not gaming the system — it is basic preparation.
  • Map your story bank to each company's framework before the interview. Every key principle should be covered by at least one strong story.
  • Align authentically by reframing your real experiences, not by fabricating alignment. You have demonstrated these principles in your career; you just need to highlight them.
  • The failure question is the highest-signal behavioral question. A genuine failure with accountability and learning demonstrates more maturity than any success story.
  • Research is non-negotiable. Read the company's values, read interview questions on Glassdoor, and talk to people who work there. Twenty minutes of research changes how you frame every answer.
  • Authenticity over polish. The interviewer has heard scripted answers before. A real story told naturally, hitting the right principles through emphasis rather than buzzwords, is far more compelling.