Why do hiring managers like to use the STAR method?

[Terribleluck]

I just got rejected from a job basically because I didn't use it! To be honest I didn't see it coming, so didn't think of using it. Personally I've never liked it, as hiring manager I always think it leaves a lot to be desired, and many applicants almost train themselves to answer said questions.

I don't enjoy interviews under any circumstances but I think the STAR method is just the standard technique across the board. I think in jobs like say coding/engineering where they can set you a task there's more flexibility in the STAR method because your work can literally speak for itself but otherwise it's a structured way of ascertaining someone's capabilities.

I hate STAR but it's the only tool I can think of that can help filter out the bullshitters. Having said that, nobody ever uses it properly despite our system instructing them to.

The main thing I have against it though, is that if you haven't experienced it, then you have to make it up, which itself is just how creatively you can think of whatever situation they're asking. The feedback I got was that I couldn't land the resolution, ultimately that's down to storytelling. I've had it at Amazon (and passed it) but there was a warning it was going to be STAR and nothing else.

It can be annoying because without any clue what you're going to be asked, it tends to favour those who are good at bluffing!

I once had an interview based on STAR where they gave everyone the questions ahead of time so you could actually prepare a decent response. Much more civilised!

What is the STAR method?

I like it- I think it’s a good way of seeing how people make decisions, problem solve and how well they can reflect on the outcome.

I hate wishy washy interviews where they just want to have a chat over your cv.

its really useful to get into the specifics of what someone has actually done rather than what they could have/might have/would have done

i would always coach people to focus on getting through explaining the situation quickly, then spending most of their time on explaining their specific rle & actions, and then absolutely hit on what the outcome was

STAR is just a structure for your answers, what really is being used is competency based interviewing. And yes there are issues with this, especially for younger less experienced and also less privileged candidates as unless you have had a wide diverse range of experiences (which older, wealthier better connected people have) you cant compete as well. A lot of movement for this reason towards strength based interviewing - looking for what actually lights a candidate up, rather than formulaic storytelling.

It's so that people don't just day I'm amazing at x, y, z without demonstrating a scenario they have applied it in. Of course people can still lie, but there's more to work with than a list of attributes someone feels they have without nought to back it up. It's a good way for the interviewee to ensure they include enough in their answer as well to get a decent score.

They asked me about a time "I felt embarrassed at work" ... How do you answer that?

@Whywonttheyletmeusemyusername

What is the STAR method?

Its a way of explaining somethimh you've done. Give an answer struture, which is:

Situation
Task
Action
Result

What competence is feeling embarrassed related to? That is appalling! Do they expect you to be embarrassed all the them when working for them?

Exactly @nameeight! Maybe when making a mistake would have made more sense :/

That is a very odd question. Unfortunately most interviewers have no training or skill in interviewing.

I rejected someone for a job this week with something along the lines of "the candidate could have benefited from use of the STAR method" when what I really rejected them for was "wasting time waffling on about loads of background that I didn't care about, and not telling me what they actually did or what the result was".

The embarrassment question is odd though!

I like the STAR method, if nothing else it help weed out the people who either didn't read the instructions or just didn't care that we'd asked for info in a certain format.

Are you sure sure don't have a problem with competency interviews rather than the STAR method - its just a (simple) way of structuring your answer? It should allow you to focus on what you've actually done and what the impacts were. Much easier to get your point across with a structure rather than a load of waffle

I like it. You can only perform well if you're well prepared and have real experiences to share IMO.

Yes, maybe you can build your part a bit, but you do need to have been involved or it will show.

I wouldn't think so, I passed interviews at both the Civil Service and Amazon and they're all very STAR heavy. The feedback was that I didn't "land" the resolution, which to me sounds like they wanted that structure.

@Terribleluck

They asked me about a time "I felt embarrassed at work" ... How do you answer that?

I think that's a good question. Depending on the role it gives an opportunity to talk about an obnoxious customer, a difficult staff member or the time you made a big cock up and how you dealt with it

@packed I couldn't remember anything apart from that time many, many years ago when my then manager asked me to email to apologise about something, but I still can't remember what I was supposed to be apologising about, only remember my colleagues sent me emails telling me I should have never been asked to do so. I think if I had seen it as a competency question, then maybe I could have answered something more substantial rather than this incomplete anecdote.

That's what's good about the STAR and competency interviews from the the interviewee's POV. If you prepare examples for all the competencies, one of them will always fit the question.

It just provides structure and as an interviewee I find it useful to keep me on track and give a detailed answer.

As an interviewer there's nothing worse than someone waffling on so much that even you forget the question you asked! I can't see the problem with it.