Share Post:

Share on facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on twitter
Share on pinterest
Share on email

Have you ever created your S.T.A.R method? It stands for situation, truncate, assent, react.


No it stands for solve, tackle, arbitrary, recompense. Retract?




This, combined with Adderall®, will help you with your interviews and your ability to talk-down to people.


It stands for situation, task, action, result. It’s a way to demonstrate your capabilities to an interviewer without sounding like you’re just making everything up and your brain is secretly composed of lime Jell-O® and subsequently you’d be a liability to hire as we all know there’s a growing trend in employment lawsuits involving “mis-hires” of inanimate objects that passed the bot-based resume screen and initial phone consult.


But none of that matters, the STAR method matters. Have you looked at this thing?


S is for situation; describe one you faced in the context of the interview question.


T is for tactics er task; what is the goal?


A is for action; what did you do?


R is for results – how did you measure success for this project (because no one is going to bring up a failure unless pointedly asked. I would though, come to think of it. And no matter how many times I’m asked to bring up a success, my knee-jerk reaction would be to repeatedly bring up failures to see how the interviewer reacts. I wonder at what point I’d be kicked out? You could probably get a solid 35-minutes out of this, maybe even 45. I’d bring up professional project failures and really ramp up the catastrophic consequences. I’d include awkward, work-related social failures, tons of personal failures – no matter how many times they protest the personal story, I’d talk about times I felt like I let down my friends, my son, gave up during a sports competition, cheated on a test, accidentally walked in on somebody in the bathroom, etc. – times I shoplifted and vandalized property…


Anyway, this STAR thing is from another planet. You cannot convince me that there is a normal person out there in the contiguous United States (sorry AK and HI) that thinks this process is somehow telling, interesting, cool, or makes sense.


Meaning, outside of the necessity of breaking down the human-resources barrier of a given organization, no one sits around having a few beers with their buddy talking about how they crushed their interview with a highly effective STAR-based conversation. Do they?


On the employer side I’m sure it’s a non-starter; as normal to them as insisting on refereeing the pick-up basketball game at the park is to me, no matter how many times I’m told nobody likes me, go away, or I’m about to physically assault you.


Wait. Do recruiters gather at happy hour and talk about their work? I imagine so, no different than a bunch of CPA’s talking about…math. I guess they’re all humans after all.


I can obviously see the benefit of the STAR system in terms of organizing thoughts. But I can’t help but liken it to the SAT, measuring a certain proficiency but not another. That being said, I don’t envy human resources folks or recruiters, despite their mink coats and necks dripping with diamonds. It’s a tough gig, especially if you’re stuck talking to me for 45 minutes.

More Updates

Beware of Physics and Esprit de Corps

The original conversation went something like this: Lieutenant: “He said he never makes mistakes, they’re just misunderstandings.” Chief: “What were you doing in the sewage

Subscribe to our newsletter or we'll totally freak out.

Engaging irreverence, occasional coherence, often pointed, mixed with enough indelicate humor as to create a want, a craving for more.