Skip to main content

Behavioral Hashmap

🧩 What is the Behavioral Hashmap?​

  • Column 1: Questions → These are the actual prompts interviewers ask (“Tell me about a time…”).
  • Column 2: Topics → Each question usually tests a competency (ownership, learning, conflict, leadership, etc.).
  • Column 3: Stories → Your real-world stories that demonstrate that competency.

The hashmap/graph idea:

  • One story can answer multiple questions.
  • One question can map to multiple topics.
  • This reduces prep from “I need 20 stories” → “I need ~5 strong reusable stories.”

🗺️ Example Behavioral Question Graphs (The Idea)​

This way you’ve built reusable pathways instead of memorizing rigid Q&A scripts.

Note: Mermaid diagrams are not the best for this... might end up eventually needing to use reagraph.

Selecting Topics:​

Hello interview has a nice categorical breakdown:

hello-interview-behavioral-topics

I added one additional category that I like to call Innovation & Ingenuity, or Curiosity & Experimentation.

Behavioral Story Categories – Definitions & Boundaries

T1. Leadership, Initiative, Impact, Transformation​

Definition​

The ability to influence, guide, or enable progress — whether through formal authority (managing a team) or informal authority (mentoring, setting direction, unblocking peers, or driving momentum). Leadership also includes taking initiative when nobody else steps in, delivering impact that materially changes outcomes, and driving transformation for teams, projects, or stakeholders.

Synonyms / Angles​

  • Leadership: guiding others, decision-making, technical direction.
  • Initiative: stepping up without being asked, creating momentum.
  • Impact: measurable results (revenue, adoption, trust, delivery success).
  • Transformation: helping a project, team, or sponsor shift from struggling → thriving.
  • Other angles: Ownership, Vision, Mentorship, Influence, Unblocking peers, Championing change.

Boundaries​

  • ✅ Counts as Leadership:

    • Stepping up when there was no formal leader.
    • Mentoring or teaching teammates.
    • Driving technical direction, setting standards, or unblocking progress.
    • Taking initiative on self-directed projects (frame as self-leadership).
    • Delivering impact that changes sponsor or stakeholder perception.
    • Transforming a stalled or struggling project/team into forward motion.

  • ❌ Doesn’t count as Leadership:

    • Pure individual contributor work with no element of guidance, influence, or initiative.
    • Contributions that had no ripple effect beyond your own tasks.
    • Projects where results came passively, without you driving momentum or shaping outcomes.

Tips​

  • If others were directly involved, frame how you influenced, guided, or enabled them.
  • If it was solo, frame it as initiative or self-leadership — e.g., “I created momentum where there wasn’t any.”
  • Always tie back to impact (business, adoption, trust, financial, or sponsor perception).
  • Highlight transformation when possible: “It was stalled → I helped make it viable.”

T2. Effective Collaboration & Teamwork​

  • Definition: Working constructively with others to achieve a shared goal.

  • Synonyms / Angles: Partnership, Cooperation, Communication, Leveraging strengths, Building trust.

  • Boundaries:

    • Counts: anytime you depended on coordination, shared work, or clear communication with peers or stakeholders.
    • Doesn’t count: solo projects (unless the outcome specifically enabled others).

  • Tip: Highlight mutual benefit and how you adapted to others’ styles.

T3. Conflict Resolution​

  • Definition: Handling misalignment, disagreement, or tension between stakeholders (people or systems) and turning it into a constructive outcome.

  • Synonyms / Angles: Negotiation, Expectation management, Bridging misunderstandings, Aligning priorities.

  • Boundaries:

    • Counts: interpersonal disagreements, expectation mismatches, stakeholder pushback.
    • Doesn’t count: generic problem-solving without a “conflict of interests” element.

  • Tip: Stress emotional control + constructive solution, not just “I won.”

T4. Adaptability​

  • Definition: Adjusting to changing circumstances, constraints, or information while still delivering results.

  • Synonyms / Angles: Flexibility, Agility, Pivoting, Thriving under change.

  • Boundaries:

    • Counts: new requirements, surprise changes, unexpected blockers.
    • Doesn’t count: predictable tasks you just executed normally.

  • Tip: Always highlight the pivot moment — when you realized you needed to change course.

T5. Perseverance​

  • Definition: Persisting through challenges, setbacks, or long efforts until achieving the goal.

  • Synonyms / Angles: Resilience, Tenacity, Grit, Persistence.

  • Boundaries:

    • Counts: long hours, multiple failures, staying focused despite frustration.
    • Doesn’t count: quick pivots that weren’t really taxing.

  • Tip: Highlight obstacles + sustained effort → not just “I worked hard,” but “I didn’t quit despite X.”

T6. Growth Mindset​

  • Definition: Viewing challenges and failures as learning opportunities, and actively seeking growth.

  • Synonyms / Angles: Continuous improvement, Lifelong learning, Feedback-seeking, Self-development.

  • Boundaries:

    • Counts: admitting gaps, upskilling, taking feedback constructively.
    • Doesn’t count: succeeding without learning.

  • Tip: Emphasize what changed in you → “After this, I always ___.”

T7. Innovation & Ingenuity​

  • Definition: Applying creativity, curiosity, or resourcefulness to design a novel approach, experiment, or solution.

  • Synonyms / Angles: Experimentation, Curiosity, Resourcefulness, Creativity, Ingenuity, “Thinking outside the box.”

  • Boundaries:

    • Counts: hypothesis-driven experiments, hacks, creative problem-solving, finding a clever workaround.
    • Doesn’t count: routine execution, even if successful.

  • Tip: Focus on novelty + insight → “I did something unconventional, here’s what I discovered.”

My Graph​

My Stories​

Frontend Fundamentals Gap​

topics: [Growth Mindset, Adaptibility] In 2018 I decided to build a modern front end using React and TypeScript. I had plenty of backend experience — I’d built REST APIs, done some MVC, lots of web scraping too - so I understood the basics around frontend to backend communication and had a fairly good grip on browser dev tools, but I was struggling more than I expected.

At first it seemed like the framework was the problem, but after a few days I realized the real issue was me — I had a superficial understanding of the fundamentals. I wasn't even aware of how all the pieces fit together - bundling, transpilation, etc. and I had toruble understanding the source of an error. So I intentionally stopped trying to push forward and went back to basics.

I started hand-crafting HTML/CSS again, learned how bundling actually works by configuring Webpack manually, served the app myself instead of relying on the framework’s dev server, a full deep dive into Javascript - event handling, callbacks/promises/async/await, the window object, etc. and spent a little more time on Typescript. Basically I filled the gaps.

Once I did that, I was able to move much faster. More importantly, I learned to always step back and fix the fundamental knowledge gap first instead of just trying to fight the abstraction.

Scraping / Sneaker Raffle (Adversarial ROI Decision)​

topics: [Growth Mindset, Adaptibility] Story (STAR format, refined)

  • Situation: I was contracted to explore building a sneaker raffle bot to increase odds in limited shoe drops.
  • Task: The real challenge wasn’t building the bot — that’s straightforward — but probing an adversarial system to see how robust the defenses were. The task was essentially: “How strong are their protections, and is it feasible to break them?”
  • Action: Another teammate had already built a headless-browser automation that could submit raffle entries using proxies and virtual credit cards, but it wasn’t scaling — the vast majority of entries were silently rejected. I stepped in and investigated at the request level. I traced each step of the entry flow, captured payloads, and compared accepted vs. rejected submissions.
  • Result: I determined the defenses were strong enough that ROI didn’t justify further escalation. I recommended the client stop pursuing the project. This showed judgment in recognizing when an adversarial task had crossed the line from a “fun build” into an unwinnable arms race.

Tags / Themes:

  • Adversarial vs non-adversarial systems
  • “How strong are their defenses?” (core framing)
  • Technical tradeoff / ROI judgment
  • Feasibility testing
  • Knowing when to stop

One-liner version:

“I was hired to build a sneaker raffle bot, but since the real task was adversarial — testing how strong the defenses were — I determined it wasn’t feasible without a large team and cut it off to save wasted effort.”

LinkedIn Growth Hack (Hypothesis & Iteration)​

topics: [Innovation & Ingenuity, Growth Mindset, Adaptibility] Story (STAR format, concise)

  • Situation: While between jobs, I ran a personal experiment based on my thesis: Due to the "who's viewed your profile" feature, if you view someone’s profile, a % will view you back.
  • Task: Test the hypothesis at scale and measure downstream clicks to my portfolio.
  • Action: I exploited LinkedIn’s sequential integer IDs (at the time) to automate profile views. I started with small batches (30k views → 300k → 3M → 30M). In the early stages i was basically just testing the rate limiter, seeing how fast i could send requests and how many views i could stuff into a single request (~1k). I was looking fo the scaling limit... (i was doing this from a sinlge IP and session after all...) so when will the activity get noticed and flagged? 30M views in a few hours.... it's turns out that was when they noticed it XD
  • Result: The experiment validated my hypothesis: ~1% viewed me back, and ~1% of those clicked through to my portfolio. I also learned how system defenses lag behind probing, and that pushing until detection is a way to measure resilience.

Tags / Themes:

  • Hypothesis-driven experimentation
  • Initiative & self-directed learning
  • Iterative feedback loop / escalation
  • Creative use of exposed system surface area
  • Resourcefulness

Here’s a clean STAR-style version of your Andean project story, keeping the important beats while tightening it for interview use:

Andean Project – Last-Minute Client Presentation​

topics: [Conflict Resolution, Adaptability, Perseverance, Effective Collaboration] Situation: I was working with a local project manager in South America on a multi-country analysis for a client (Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador). I had completed Colombia’s data, but Peru and Ecuador were still in early stages — the local PM was aware of this. The day before a major corporate presentation in Berlin, my manager asked about the status, expecting all three countries’ data to be ready.

Task: Deliver something credible and useful for the client presentation within less than 24 hours, despite incomplete data for two countries.

Action:

  • I quickly aligned with my boss and explained what was actually ready (Colombia) and what was still in-progress.
  • We worked together late into the night to cobble together the best analysis we could, filling gaps with partial data and clear assumptions.
  • My boss went home to rest before his flight, while I stayed up creating and refining a PowerPoint deck he could actually present.
  • We synced again at 6 a.m. for a walkthrough, and I polished the slides until 8 a.m. before handing them off.

Result: The presentation went smoothly. While the lack of Peru/Ecuador data didn’t materially change the client’s decision-making, it demonstrated resilience under pressure and the ability to salvage a deliverable with tight constraints. Afterward, I identified the root cause as a breakdown in communication and expectation-setting between stakeholders, and I adjusted my process to give clearer progress updates going forward.

This version positions you well because it shows:

  • Adaptability (T4): pivoting in a high-pressure, last-minute situation.
  • Perseverance (T5): pulling an all-nighter to get the deliverable done.
  • Effective Collaboration (T2): teaming with your boss to cover each other and deliver something presentable.
  • Growth Mindset (T6): you didn’t just execute, you also reflected on the breakdown and implemented a process improvement.

Perfect—here’s the tightened story with your scaffold philosophy baked in.

noCRUD – Initiative & Ingenuity (Scaffold You’re Supposed to Modify)​

Situation Our stack had gaps: unit tests passed, but real-world, multi-user workflows and permission logic weren’t exercised. Teams needed a fast way to simulate realistic flows without clicking through UI—and every product’s needs differ enough that generic tools get in the way.

Task Create a scaffold teams can pick up and immediately use, but that they’re expected to modify to fit their product. The runner should make customization trivial (e.g., swap DB provisioning strategies, tailor auth, compose flows) rather than force teams into a rigid framework.

Action

  • Built noCRUD, a CLI test-runner + workflow simulator with two modes:

    • CRUD mode for endpoint sanity.
    • Request-flow mode for multi-user, cross-endpoint scenarios (e.g., POST as A → GET as B (expect fail) → update perms → GET as C (expect success)).

  • Designed as a copy-first scaffold (not a black-box lib): you drop it into your repo and change the runner itself—auth, object builders, flow discovery, formatting—whatever you need.

  • Engineered pluggable provisioning so teams choose what fits:

    • migrate (simple),
    • psql -f schema.sql (faster),
    • createdb -T template_db (fastest; file-level clone).

  • Added isolated envs per flow (unique DB + app port) for parallel runs, with DB mismatch checks, persist-on-fail debugging, and clear, structured output.

  • Wrote a thorough README so anyone can resume with minimal cold-start overhead.

Result

  • Teams can immediately run CRUD and workflow tests and then tailor the runner to their product: auth, builders, data seeding, provisioning strategy.
  • Saved hours of manual QA and made rule enforcement (expected failures) testable.
  • Not fully CI/CD-integrated by design right now—this is most valuable post-MVP when stability and regression coverage matter; the scaffold lets orgs grow into CI later.

Reflection / Learning

  • Test runners are simple—the power is in making them easy to modify.
  • Don’t hide failures: a past “clean logs” refactor masked missing migrations; I added loud failures and env guards.
  • Tooling should meet teams where they are: copy → run → customize.

Strongest Categories​

  • T1 Leadership (Initiative): You saw the gap, built a tool no one asked for, and made it easy for others to adopt and extend.
  • T7 Innovation & Ingenuity: Copy-first, runner-as-scaffold philosophy; pluggable provisioning strategies; multi-user workflow simulation.
  • T6 Growth Mindset: Turned a painful migration bug into durable guardrails (fail-loud wrappers, DB match checks, persist-on-fail).
  • T5 Perseverance (optional angle): Parallelization, env isolation, and infra quirks took sustained effort to get right.

Processes & Models (Innovation & Ingenuity)​

Not really a story, but a chunk of them may fit as an answer

Framing line (the umbrella):

Over the years I’ve realized my best innovations aren’t just in the tools I build, but in the processes and models I design for myself. These are systems that compound over time and turn chaos into flow.

Core Examples (bullet style, so I can hit 2–3 depending on time):​

  • Minimum Viable Structure (MVS): I only add structure that supports movement. A queue beats a warehouse — folders become bottlenecks, but flows keep ideas alive.
  • Email Queue Workflow: Instead of heavy project-management tools, I repurposed email into a lightweight capture + triage loop: unread = queue, reply = done, archive = closed.
  • Clarity Loop: My method for turning “I don’t get this” moments into durable knowledge: pause → deep dive → write in my own words → validate → persist.
  • Reconstruct to Remember: Recognition isn’t recall. Real mastery is when I can reconstruct a concept from scratch in my own terms — which is why I publish my own quick references.
  • Portfolio as Living System: My portfolio isn’t a static resume; it’s a knowledge engine. Every feature I build is both a product artifact and a learning reinforcement loop.
  • Brain No Cold Start Overhead: Any idea, system, proejct, etc. The important details are synthesized and documented so that when I come back to it I can jump right back in (key ideas, status, next up, etc.). I take pride in my documentation.

Result / Takeaway:

  • These processes are why I call myself a well-designed machine. They make me faster, clearer, and more resilient — and because they’re lightweight, I actually stick with them.
  • I’m proudest of these because they aren’t just hacks — they’re models that compound over time and make everything else I do better.

Yes — your portfolio site history is an excellent Perseverance (T5) story. It shows how you didn’t stop after failed attempts, but iterated until you found a system that really worked for you. And it’s authentic — you’re not dressing it up, you’re literally showing the journey.

Here’s how it works in STAR format:

Portfolio Site – Perseverance​

Situation: I wanted a portfolio site that reflected not just my resume, but my skills, learning process, and projects. Over the years, I tried multiple approaches — each with its own tradeoffs.

Task: Build a portfolio site I would actually use long-term, and that could grow with me, instead of being abandoned like earlier attempts.

Action:

  • 1st Attempt: Overengineered (.NET Core MVC, SQL Server, ORM). I learned a lot of C#/.NET, but it was unnecessarily complex and I abandoned it.
  • 2nd Attempt: Simplified React frontend deployed on S3 + Cloudfront + Route53. Much leaner, finished and used it to find clients. Leveraged YouTube playlists via API to auto-populate video content.
  • 3rd Attempt: Current site built with Docusaurus. Markdown-based, flexible, and integrated with my personal knowledge system. Migrated Evernote notes, built visualizations, and expanded it into a living system rather than a static showcase.

Result:

  • The current version is sustainable, lightweight, and extensible — something I can confidently use for decades.
  • The iterative history itself shows growth: I went from overengineering → pragmatic MVP → “just right” balance.
  • Along the way, I gained backend experience, deployment skills, frontend polish, and a personal framework for balancing complexity with usability.

Reflection: This site is more than a project. It’s proof of perseverance through multiple failures and pivots, and it embodies my belief that iteration leads to clarity. Each attempt taught me something valuable, and the end product is both useful to others and deeply tied into my own learning process.

Category Fit​

  • Perseverance (T5): You kept going after failed/misaligned attempts until you got it right.
  • Growth Mindset (T6): Each version taught you something you applied in the next.
  • Innovation & Ingenuity (T7, secondary): Using OPB (“other people’s backends”) and Docusaurus as a markdown-based living system.

Revgen + End Client (Overall Story)

Result (lead-in): Over the course of ~2–3 years,we did about ~15 projects that generated ~$10M in revenue for RevGen.

  • This started as a single 3-week project, the only reason we got each follow on project was because they were so pleased with the work.
  • Just as important, trust in the reporting system was rebuilt with business stakeholders,
  • and the CEO even recommended RevGen to their PE group because of our impact.

Situation / Task: RevGen brought me in as the Tableau ecosystem SME. The client had cycled through multiple consulting firms before us, frustrated with outcomes. Our core delivery team was senior specialists — myself (Tableau), a RevGen Data Architect, and the Enterprise Architect at the client — so leadership wasn’t positional, it was situational.

  • Me: strongest in Tableau ecosystem (admin, cluster tuning, stability, reporting architecture).
  • Enterprise Architect: strongest in AWS + sysadmin (infra, IaC, cloud integration, ops).
  • Data Architect: strongest in BI / reporting design (pipelines, modeling, dashboards).

And then add the nuance:

  • Even though each of you had clear strengths, you all had overlapping exposure in the other areas. For example, I’d already been working with AWS since 2018 and had BI/reporting in your background, the Data Architect picked up Tableau expertise from you, and you partnered with the Enterprise Architect on AWS-heavy projects like the contact sync.
  • That overlap meant the team was resilient: no single point of failure, and everyone was able to contribute outside their “main lane.”

Reflection: This was one of the strongest examples of peer-to-peer teamwork in my career: three senior specialists, leading fluidly in our domains, but trusting each other to align for the client’s success.

👉 With this results-first framing, I'm signaling:

  1. Big business impact (money + trust + CEO endorsement).
  2. Then unpacking how I personally led or how the team collaborated.

ESPER (Overall Story)

Spoken Version – ESPER Leadership Story​

*"When I joined the ESPER project (SaaS platform), it had already been in devleopment for about two years but wasn’t gaining traction. The sponsor was starting to question whether it would ever become viable. I wasn’t the formal lead, but I recognized the project needed direction and momentum.

I focused on laying down foundations — things like a flexible test execution model, user roles and approvals, and a file storage abstraction. I also added quick, high-impact features like an audit log and usage analytics so stakeholders could immediately see value and performance. Alongside that, I built reusable components and documentation to reduce onboarding overhead and make development more sustainable.

The result is that ESPER went from a stalled effort to a functional MVP, and now into production with real users and a structured deployment cycle. For me, leadership in this case meant not just building features, but creating the scaffolding, practices, and visible wins that gave the sponsor confidence"*

Perfect — those extra points actually give you an even stronger “end-to-end leadership arc” for ESPER: not only did you help it break out of the stall → MVP, but now it’s in production with real users, structured deployment cycles, and you added high-leverage features that gave stakeholders visibility and confidence. That’s a huge leadership storyline.

Here’s how I’d refine the story with those additions:

ESPER (Overall Story)​

Situation / Task: By the time I joined, ESPER had been in development for ~2 years but was struggling to gain traction. Not many features had been built, and the sponsor was questioning whether it would ever become viable. The project lacked momentum due to direction changes, scope creep, and even full resets when team members or SMEs changed. My task wasn’t formal leadership, but what the project needed was someone to set direction, establish foundations, and prove value quickly.

Result (lead-in): I helped move ESPER from “stalled effort” to a functional MVP, and now into production use with real users. We’ve established a clear deployment methodology and shifted into a cycle of refinement and user feedback. My contributions were foundational to breaking through the stall and building stakeholder confidence.

Action:

  • Delivered Critical Foundations:

    • Test Point CSV Importer (decoupled, dynamic for customer revisions).
    • File Storage abstraction (S3/local).
    • Test Execution scaffolding (data model + frontend components).
    • UserRoles system and a polymorphic Approvals system.
    • QLR PDF Generator designed for extensibility.
    • Parallelized API test runner for backend validation.

  • Added High-Impact Features Quickly:

    • Built a request audit log to track actions.
    • Added a usage analytics dashboard to show engagement.
    • Implemented request timing metrics (avg/max) so bottlenecks were visible.

  • Established Patterns & Practices:

    • Reusable components (GenericQEditor, selectors, editable tables).
    • Interception pages to enforce entity preconditions.
    • Documentation & READMEs to reduce “cold start” overhead.

  • Shaped Development Style:

    • Prioritized MVP-first delivery while architecting for future flexibility.
    • Balanced best practices with pragmatic tradeoffs around technical debt.
    • Modeled composability and decoupling as default patterns.

Reflection: I wasn’t the project manager, but I led through technical judgment and delivery discipline. By establishing scaffolding, delivering high-leverage features, and shaping the development culture, I helped turn ESPER into a product with real traction — from “is this going anywhere?” to “we have a production system with users and a sustainable deployment cycle.”

Why This Story Works​

  • Leadership (T1): Shows I can take initiative in a struggling project, set direction, and create momentum.
  • Perseverance (T5): Took something stalled for 2 years and helped push it across the finish line.
  • Innovation & Ingenuity (T7): Quick-hit but high-impact features (audit log, analytics, timings) that shifted stakeholder perception.