Went through the Webflow loop for a content design-adjacent role and ended up having three rounds with behavioral components. Wanted to share what I noticed about the patterns.
First: Webflow has a pretty distinct culture document that they actually reference in interviews. They use the word 'ownership' a lot, but they mean it differently than most companies. When they say ownership, they're asking whether you've driven something end to end even when it wasn't your explicit responsibility, not whether you shipped fast. The distinction matters.
Behavioral questions I was asked or heard about from others: Tell me about a time you disagreed with a decision that was already made. How did you handle it? Give me an example where you had to influence without authority. Describe a project where the initial scope was wrong and you caught it. What happened? Tell me about a time you had to deliver feedback that was hard to hear for the other person. Walk me through a time you had to prioritize under real ambiguity, where more information would've been nice but wasn't coming.
The pattern across those: they care about judgment, not just execution. They want to know that you can navigate uncertainty and conflict with some grace. A lot of the questions are designed to surface how you think about other people on a team, not just how you personally delivered.
I came from a nonprofit background and was worried my examples wouldn't translate. They did. They asked for the reasoning behind decisions, not the tech stack underneath them.
One thing to avoid: giving overly sanitized answers where everything worked out perfectly. The interviewers visibly pushed back when I started a story with 'so I identified the problem, solved it, and the team loved it.' They want the messy middle.
Prepare 4-5 solid STAR stories and make sure at least one of them involves real conflict or failure. Not failure theater, actual failure and what you learned.