Three renewals are at risk, and you can intervene with only one account today. How would you choose?

Example Answer

I'd compare the consequence of delay with what I can realistically change today. In this fictional case, Account A has the largest contract and renews in 20 days, but its decision-maker has not responded. Account B renews in 10 days and has a specific onboarding blocker that our team can address today. Account C renews in five days and has a confirmed unresolved security concern that requires specialist approval.

My direct working session would initially go to B, because it has a reachable owner and a feasible intervention. I would not leave C waiting: I'd route its security concern immediately to the authorized team and tell the customer who will respond. I'd also ask the account and commercial team to pursue decision-maker access for A, with an honest risk note in the forecast.

That choice is conditional. If today's deadline makes C's expert meeting decisive, or A becomes reachable with a concrete recoverable issue, I'd reconsider. I'd explain what I am prioritizing, what I am delegating and which evidence would change the plan. The largest contract and earliest renewal are inputs, not automatic answers.

Make it your own

Fictional practice case: A is the largest contract, renews in 20 days and has no decision-maker access. B renews in 10 days with a reachable owner and a fixable onboarding blocker. C renews in five days with an unresolved security concern requiring specialist approval. You have one direct working session today; explain your choice and the immediate routing for the other accounts.

Why this works

It distinguishes the best use of the candidate’s time from urgent work that requires another owner, and gives a reasoned choice that can change with new evidence.

Interviewer follow-up

Would you calculate a single risk score and take the highest result?

A score could help organize the inputs, but I'd inspect its assumptions and keep the actual constraints visible. A very high risk account may not have a feasible intervention for me today. I'd use the score alongside timing, access and likely impact, and explain the choice rather than let a number hide it.

Pressure test follow-up

The security specialist is only available today, and Account C’s buyer says that meeting could determine renewal. What do you change?

I'd move my session to C if my participation is needed to make that meeting happen and resolve the business questions. If a qualified colleague is available, I'd ask them to cover B; otherwise, I'd tell B why the plan changed and agree its next workable slot. I'd update the team on the reason: expert availability and buyer access now make C's intervention both urgent and feasible.

What this tests

The candidate must change their recommendation when feasibility changes, while giving the displaced account a credible path forward.

References

• GitLab customer success operating handbook