A storage company's technical VP interviewed a candidate from a leading battery manufacturer whose CV claimed responsibility for system design on three hundred-megawatt-scale storage projects. The candidate confidently explained PCS topologies, BMS balancing and GB/T 36547 requirements.
In the final interview, the CEO asked what conflict had arisen between cell selection and PCS topology, and how the candidate had resolved it. The answer was that the battery team made those decisions; the candidate handled one part of electrical integration. The claimed leadership responsibility was considerably wider than the work actually owned.
Technical knowledge is necessary. A leadership interview must also establish how the person made system decisions, coordinated specialists and delivered a complete project.
Use a shared assessment structure
Moka HR, citing LinkedIn data, reports an average of 4.7 candidates interviewed per vacancy and 2.3 rounds per candidate. It also reports that 67% of assessments still rely on brief handwritten notes, with an average difference of 2.1 points between interviewers on a five-point scale.
Frequently cited interview research puts predictive-validity coefficients at 0.14 for unstructured interviews and 0.51 for structured interviews. These are validity measures, not percentages of correct hiring decisions. They reinforce the practical value of consistent questions and evidence-based scoring.
At UB hunter, our assessment focuses on five areas: system architecture, end-to-end delivery, decisions under constraints, reflection and cross-functional influence.
1. Ask for a system architecture sketch
Give the candidate 30 minutes to draw the architecture of a storage system they led, using information they can appropriately discuss. Ask them to explain the subsystems, interfaces, component-selection criteria and system-efficiency calculation.
Explore why the team chose LFP rather than sodium-ion cells, string rather than central PCS, or liquid rather than air cooling. Ask how BMS-to-PCS communications were defined and which operating scenario the EMS strategy optimised.
Someone who owned the system should be able to connect these choices. A specialist may provide an excellent schematic for one subsystem but have limited knowledge of the wider trade-offs. That distinction helps determine whether the candidate fits a specialist or overall technical-lead role.
Storage leadership listings on Liepin commonly include overall technical design, electrical design, equipment selection and integration across customer-side, generation-side and grid-side projects. The interview should test the corresponding responsibility.
2. Follow one project from requirements to acceptance
Use the STAR structure: situation, task, action and result. Ask for one project from initial customer requirements through technical definition, unexpected problems, commissioning and delivery.
When the candidate says “we”, ask what they personally decided or completed. When they say the result was good, ask for the relevant efficiency, lifetime, cost, schedule or quality measure. When a project sounds unusually smooth, explore battery consistency, grid-connection tests and the decisions that needed revision.
Beisen's three-layer follow-up framework offers another useful sequence: examine the quality of the result, the actions that produced it and the person's motivation and initiative. The objective is to establish a coherent chain between responsibility, action and outcome.
3. Give the candidate a realistic trade-off
For example, describe a 200 MWh grid-side project in a hot, humid southern location, requiring at least 6,000 cycles within a constrained budget. Ask how the candidate would select the cells, PCS, BMS and cooling system, then explain the proposal to the customer.
A more focused scenario can introduce competing requirements: the battery team prefers a high-energy-density cell with moderate cycle life; the power-electronics team prefers a high-efficiency PCS with limited harmonic margin; and the site must support an older communications protocol.
A strong response first clarifies the customer's priorities, budget, interfaces and major risks. It explains which assumptions require testing and how a decision would be made. Reciting the advantages of one component does not resolve the system problem.
4. Ask what they would change
After discussing a completed project, ask which decision they would make differently and why. Useful answers connect a specific choice to a measurable effect.
Examples include reducing liquid-cooling flow by 15% to lower cost by 8%, recognising that an aggressive BMS balancing strategy added three weeks to commissioning, or correcting a design after grid-side harmonic testing required rework. These are examples of the level of detail to explore, rather than predetermined answers a candidate must provide.
A reflective candidate can explain both achievements and mistakes. A broad statement such as “we would communicate more” needs further probing. Likewise, differences between interview rounds should be discussed against the same criteria. An experienced founder sharing interview practice on Xiaoyuzhou described using that process to align the hiring team's judgement.
5. Examine cross-functional influence
Ask about a disagreement between two technical teams: what was at stake, what each side wanted, what the candidate did and how the final design performed.
A credible leader can describe the evidence, negotiation and compromise behind the decision. If every difficult choice was escalated for someone else to resolve, clarify whether the candidate was a decision-maker or an executor.
Do not let fluent presentation substitute for detail. Nor should experience at CATL, BYD or Sungrow reduce the depth of questioning. Large organisations often divide work narrowly; ask exactly which subsystem, interface and decision authority the person held.
Record evidence against the role
For system architecture, record whether the candidate can explain interfaces and quantify safety, efficiency and cost trade-offs. For delivery, record a complete project, personal responsibilities, difficulties and results. For scenario work, assess priorities, assumptions and risk. For reflection and influence, look for specific decisions, lessons and cross-team outcomes.
Our practical observation is that interview design and follow-up account for much of the difficulty in assessing technical leaders—roughly 80% in the situations discussed by our consultants. Use that observation to improve the interview process, not to judge a candidate in advance.
UB hunter can help turn a role profile into structured questions and assessment criteria. The strongest evidence is a project story with clear responsibility, technical detail, disagreement, reflection and results.