What does “be more proactive” ask Alex to do?
You inherit a note that says Alex should be more proactive. Alex maintains operational runbooks, but the note gives no example or deadline.
The question
Northline Services and all people, records and outcomes in this case are fictional. You manage its internal-tools team. Use only the supplied work evidence.
- Previous managerAlex needs to be more proactive.
- AlexI fix the runbooks people ask me about. I do not know which others should come first.
- Team leadBefore the next release, each critical runbook needs an owner and a tested rollback.
“Choose your next management action and explain the evidence behind it.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Start with the missing context
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Ask what the label refers to
The strong move. A label does not tell Alex which action to change.
Repeat the rating more firmly
Tempting, but it misses something. A firmer label still gives no observable action.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would ask for specific examples, the intended work standard and Alex’s account before reaching a conclusion.”
Why it works: A label does not tell Alex which action to change.
Step 2: Define the work to accept
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Name the deliverables and checks
The strong move. Scope, quality and timing make the agreement assessable.
Require ten documents to show initiative
Tempting, but it misses something. More documents can leave critical runbooks unusable.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Agree six named critical runbooks by November 24, each with an owner and a tested rollback, with access and review capacity confirmed.”
Why it works: Scope, quality and timing make the agreement assessable.
Step 3: Set the decision boundary
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Agree autonomy and escalation
The strong move. Delegation includes a clear route for support.
Approve every edit yourself
Tempting, but it misses something. Routine approvals make the manager the bottleneck.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Alex can choose the editing order. A missing permission or unclear rollback goes to me before it puts the date at risk.”
Why it works: Delegation includes a clear route for support.
Step 4: Check the shared understanding
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Confirm the agreement together
The strong move. Both people need to understand their next action.
Send the plan and assume it is understood
Tempting, but it misses something. A sent message does not confirm a shared interpretation.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Ask Alex to restate the agreement, confirm the support I owe and set a checkpoint before the release.”
Why it works: Both people need to understand their next action.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Use a specific agreement rather than a personality label.
- Because
- The inherited note gives no evidence of a broken commitment.
- What would change it
- New examples or unavailable access could change the plan.
Common traps
- A volume target without acceptance criteria rewards document production.
Check your answer
- I asked for an example.
- I named scope, quality and timing.
- I preserved useful autonomy.
- I checked my own support action.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026