Editorially revised on 9 October 2026.
Situational questions ask how you would approach a hypothetical problem. Practising varied questions can reveal which assumptions you make too quickly: that you have approval, that every deadline is negotiable, that a colleague's request is authorised or that a proposed action guarantees a result.
This article is an original practice bank with six fictional question families and follow-ups. It complements the separate response-construction guide. Its questions are educational examples, not leaked employer questions, a universal scoring rubric or evidence of actual candidate outcomes.
Use the question bank as a practice exercise
For each question, identify the objective, one missing fact and the limit of your authority. Give a conditional answer, then let a practice partner change one fact. Explain how that change affects your next action.
Harvard's interviewing guidance supports preparation and relevant examples. The question families here are original editorial exercises. An employer's actual instructions and procedures take precedence over a generic practice answer.
If a question asks “What did you do?” rather than “What would you do?”, use a real past experience. Do not convert the fictional samples into personal achievements. You can say that you have not handled that exact situation and offer a genuine related example if appropriate.
Question family 1: unfamiliar work with a short deadline
Practice question: “You are asked to complete a task using a tool you have not used before. The deadline is tomorrow. What would you do?”
Clarify the required output, your access to the tool and the consequence of an incorrect result. A short deadline does not establish permission to bypass a required check or use an unapproved external service.
Fictional answer direction: “I would confirm the output and critical checks, tell the responsible person which part is unfamiliar, and seek the approved guidance or support available. I would work on a small example to check understanding before applying the method to the full task. If the deadline and required checks cannot both be met, I would make that conflict visible and seek a decision.”
Follow-up: “What if no experienced colleague is available?” Explain how you would use permitted documentation, limit assumptions and communicate what remains uncertain. Do not promise expertise overnight or claim that watching a tutorial proves the full output is correct.
Second follow-up: “What if the work includes sensitive data?” The available tools and sharing permissions become part of the decision. Learning quickly is not permission to upload records to any convenient service.
Question family 2: a mistake is found after delivery
Practice question: “You discover that a document you sent contains a material error. What would you do?”
First identify what is wrong and who may rely on it. A spelling mistake and an incorrect figure that changes a decision can require different responses. Avoid guessing the impact before checking the relevant facts.
Fictional answer direction: “I would verify the correction, notify the responsible owner and affected recipients through the appropriate route, and explain which part of the earlier version is unreliable. I would issue or support a corrected version under the agreed process and check whether anyone has already acted on the error.”
Follow-up: “What if a recipient has already made a decision?” Explain that you would establish the facts and support the proper recovery process within your role. You cannot assume that replacing the attachment reverses the recipient's action.
Second follow-up: “What would you change afterwards?” Investigate the cause before proposing prevention. A review step might help, but no checklist can be described as eliminating every future error without evidence.
Question family 3: a request is outside your authority
Practice question: “A client asks you to approve an exception that you are not authorised to approve. How would you respond?”
Clarify the request and relevant procedure. Being helpful does not require claiming decision powers you do not have. You can explain the process and route the request to the right person without guaranteeing the outcome.
Fictional answer direction: “I would acknowledge the request, confirm the information needed for review and explain that approval belongs to the designated owner. I would route it through the appropriate process and give only a timeline or next step I can support. I would not present an unapproved exception as agreed.”
Follow-up: “What if the client demands an immediate yes?” Explain the boundary calmly and identify the available escalation route. Do not invent a promise to end the conversation.
Second follow-up: “What if the request is actually permitted under policy?” Then the decision changes: check the conditions and your role in carrying it out. The exercise tests whether you can adjust to a relevant fact, not whether you always refuse exceptions.
Question family 4: instructions conflict
Practice question: “A colleague gives instructions that appear inconsistent with the current process document. What would you do?”
Check which document is current, whether an authorised change exists and what the colleague actually means. A difference may be an error, an approved update or a misunderstanding. Do not begin with an accusation.
Fictional answer direction: “I would compare the instruction with the current approved procedure and ask for clarification about the difference. If an authorised update exists, I would confirm the applicable version. If the conflict remains unresolved, I would seek a decision from the responsible owner before taking an irreversible action.”
Follow-up: “What if the colleague says everyone does it this way?” Common practice is information to investigate, not proof of authorisation. Explain what evidence would establish the permitted process.
Second follow-up: “What if waiting creates an immediate safety issue?” Follow the relevant safety and escalation procedures for the role. The interviewer must provide or permit assumptions about those procedures; do not invent a universal operational rule.
Question family 5: learning from critical feedback
Practice question: “Your manager says your work is difficult for the next team to use. How would you respond?”
Ask for a specific example and what usable work would look like. “Improve quality” is a broad instruction. A missing field, unclear status or inaccessible format suggests a more concrete repair.
Fictional answer direction: “I would ask which part created difficulty and review an example with the manager or receiving team where appropriate. I would agree a specific change, apply it to a small sample and seek feedback on whether it addresses the problem. I would then check the revised work before extending the change.”
Follow-up: “What if you disagree with the feedback?” Explain your evidence calmly and remain open to a misunderstanding. Neither automatic agreement nor defensive dismissal helps establish what needs changing.
Second follow-up: “What if the criticism is vague?” Ask a focused clarification and propose a way to make the expectation observable. Do not claim that vague feedback already proves a performance failure or improvement.
Question family 6: choosing between a quick fix and a deeper repair
Practice question: “A recurring issue can be patched quickly, but the underlying cause is unclear. What would you do?”
Clarify the impact, the reversibility of the patch and who can approve it. A temporary workaround may be useful if its limitations are explicit. It should not be described as a permanent solution without investigating the cause.
Fictional answer direction: “I would establish the immediate impact and whether the proposed workaround is permitted and reversible. If approved, I would document its limits and how we will check it. I would separately investigate the cause and agree a review point so the workaround does not silently become the permanent process.”
Follow-up: “What if the patch introduces a new risk?” Compare that risk with the current impact and seek the appropriate decision. Do not assume speed always outranks other requirements.
Second follow-up: “How would you know the deeper fix worked?” Name a behaviour and evidence that would support the claim. A deployment or a completed task alone is not proof that the recurring problem stopped.
Keep a practice log
| Practice field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Question | The exact hypothetical conditions given. |
| Assumption | A fact you supplied without evidence. |
| Clarification | The question that could resolve it. |
| Decision change | How a changed condition altered your approach. |
| Authority boundary | What you can do and what needs approval. |
| Next practice | One specific reasoning point to improve. |
Use the log to choose the next question, rather than memorising all six answers. If you repeatedly assume approval, practise the authority family. If you jump to a fix without checking impact, practise the delivery-error or temporary-repair family.
For a detailed decision sequence with annotated answers, use situational interview responses. For an employer-interest question, use why do you want to work here. Those questions serve different purposes.
Frequently asked questions
Are these the questions I will receive?
No. They are original practice questions. Use the employer's actual assessment instructions and role requirements to choose your preparation.
Should I always ask a question before answering?
Ask when a missing fact materially affects the action. If the interviewer wants you to proceed with assumptions, state them and give a conditional approach.
Can I claim the fictional answer as my own experience?
No. Keep hypothetical language for hypothetical responses. A past-experience question requires a truthful event and your actual contribution.