Let’s talk about what has been normalized in job interviews.
Not what candidates are doing wrong.
What hiring professionals have created.
Because somewhere along the way, the job interview stopped being a conversation about whether someone could actually do the job and became a performance candidates are expected to master.
And then hiring professionals act surprised when candidates learn how to perform.
Of course they perform.
You taught them to.
“Just Be Yourself.”
That’s probably one of the most overused pieces of advice given to job candidates.
“Just be yourself.”
Really?
Be yourself — but prepare.
Be yourself — but don’t take too long.
Be yourself — but give us a concise answer.
Be yourself — but structure your response.
Be yourself — but make sure you demonstrate leadership, collaboration, adaptability, accountability, problem-solving and whatever else happens to be sitting on the interview scorecard.
Be yourself — but make sure you give us the answer we’re looking for.
That’s not exactly being yourself.
That’s performing yourself.
And candidates know it.
They know they’re being evaluated.
They know there is a right way to answer and a wrong way to answer.
They know that one awkward pause, one poorly worded response or one example that doesn’t quite fit the interviewer’s expectations can suddenly become evidence that they aren’t “the right fit.”
So what do they do?
They prepare.
They practice.
They memorize.
They rehearse.
And then hiring professionals complain that candidates sound rehearsed.
What exactly did you expect?
Then Comes the Behavioral Interview
“Tell me about a time when you had to deal with a difficult coworker.”
“Tell me about a time you demonstrated leadership.”
“Tell me about a time you failed.”
“Tell me about a time you dealt with conflict.”
“Tell me about a time you worked under pressure.”
And, of course:
“What did you learn?”
There is nothing inherently wrong with asking about someone’s experience.
The problem is what has happened to the process.
Behavioral interviews have become so predictable that candidates can prepare for them before they ever walk into the room.
Career coaches know the questions.
Interview websites know the questions.
Recruiters know the questions.
AI knows the questions.
Candidates know the questions.
Entire industries exist to teach people how to answer them.
And yet the candidate is still expected to sound completely spontaneous.
Think about the contradiction.
Prepare for the question we know we’re going to ask — but don’t make it look like you prepared.
That’s theater.
The STAR Method Didn’t Help
Situation.
Task.
Action.
Result.
The STAR method was intended to give candidates a way to organize their thoughts.
Fair enough.
But it has become something much bigger.
Candidates are now coached to turn their experiences into perfectly packaged little stories.
Set the scene.
Explain the problem.
Describe your actions.
Give the result.
Quantify the outcome.
Keep it concise.
Don’t ramble.
Don’t spend too much time on the situation.
Don’t forget to say what you did.
And whatever you do, make sure you actually answer the question.
Suddenly, the candidate isn’t simply talking about what happened.
They’re constructing an answer.
And the interviewer is evaluating how well they constructed it.
But does an excellent STAR answer prove that someone will be excellent at the job?
Not necessarily.
It proves they can produce an excellent STAR answer.
Those are two very different things.
The Interview Has Become a Game
Candidates have learned the rules.
They’ve learned that certain words sound better than others.
They’ve learned how to turn weaknesses into strengths.
They’ve learned how to talk about failure without really appearing to have failed.
They’ve learned how to sound collaborative, innovative, resilient, strategic, adaptable and passionate.
They’ve learned how to answer “Where do you see yourself in five years?” without actually telling you where they see themselves in five years.
They’ve learned how to answer “What is your greatest weakness?” without revealing an actual weakness.
They’ve learned how to answer “Why should we hire you?” without sounding arrogant.
And when they do all of this successfully, they’re called a strong interview candidate.
But what have you actually established?
That they can interview well.
That’s it.
You haven’t necessarily established that they’re the best person for the job.
You’ve established that they understood the assignment.
And Then There Is “Culture Fit”
This one deserves some scrutiny.
Because “culture fit” sounds professional.
It sounds objective.
It sounds like a legitimate hiring criterion.
But what does it actually mean?
Does it mean the candidate communicates effectively?
Can they collaborate?
Can they handle disagreement?
Can they solve problems?
Can they work with different personalities?
Or does it sometimes quietly become:
“Do I like this person?”
“Would I get along with them?”
“Do they remind me of people who already work here?”
“Would I enjoy having them on my team?”
Those are not necessarily the same thing.
And when personal comfort gets dressed up as professional assessment, subjectivity doesn’t magically disappear because you’ve called it “culture.”
The Candidate Is Evaluating You Too
Here’s something hiring professionals sometimes forget.
The candidate walked into that interview knowing they were being evaluated.
But they’re evaluating you too.
They’re watching.
They’re listening.
They’re noticing whether you prepared.
They’re noticing whether you’ve actually read their resume.
They’re noticing whether you’re asking thoughtful questions or simply working your way through a script.
They’re noticing whether you respect their time.
They’re noticing whether you treat them like a potential colleague or like someone who needs to prove they deserve to be in the room.
And they’re making decisions.
Because an interview shouldn’t simply answer:
“Does this candidate impress us?”
It should also answer:
“Does this organization impress the candidate?”
So What Are You Actually Measuring?
This is where I think hiring professionals need to be honest with themselves.
When you reject someone because their answer wasn’t polished enough, what exactly were you measuring?
When you penalize someone because they paused before answering, what exactly were you measuring?
When someone doesn’t deliver the perfect STAR response, what exactly were you measuring?
When you choose the person who interviewed better, what exactly were you measuring?
When you say someone “wasn’t a fit,” what exactly were you measuring?
And when two candidates have essentially the same qualifications, but one simply performed better during the interview, are you certain you’ve identified the better employee?
Or did you identify the better interview performer?
Because those aren’t automatically the same person.
Of Course They Perform. You Taught Them To.
Think about everything candidates are told to do.
Prepare.
Research the company.
Practice common questions.
Study behavioral questions.
Learn STAR.
Prepare your elevator pitch.
Practice your delivery.
Prepare your questions.
Rehearse your examples.
Practice until your answers feel natural.
Then walk into the interview and convince the hiring team that what they’re seeing is the authentic you.
Of course they perform.
You taught them to.
You created the conditions.
You established the rules.
You established the expectations.
You established what a “good answer” sounds like.
Then you trained candidates, directly and indirectly, to figure out how to give you that answer.
And now we’re surprised that they’ve become good at it.
Maybe the Problem Isn’t the Candidate
I’m not suggesting interviews are useless.
I’m not suggesting hiring decisions shouldn’t involve assessment.
And I’m certainly not suggesting candidates shouldn’t prepare.
They absolutely should.
What I’m questioning is the confidence we place in the interview itself.
The assumption that a polished answer equals competence.
That confidence equals capability.
That a perfect behavioral example predicts future performance.
That a candidate who interviews poorly will necessarily perform poorly.
And that someone who interviews brilliantly will necessarily perform brilliantly.
None of those things are automatically true.
So perhaps the conversation shouldn’t always be:
“How can candidates become better at interviewing?”
Perhaps hiring professionals need to ask:
“How can we become better at actually assessing people?”
Because there is a difference.
A very big one.
The candidate shouldn’t have to become a better actor for the hiring process to work.
The hiring process should become better at seeing the person.
Until hiring professionals are willing to question the interview itself, they’ll continue teaching candidates how to perform for a system that was supposed to be evaluating who they really are.
And maybe that’s the real problem.
Not the candidate.
The theater.
0 comments