Hacker News Reader

Comment by durzagott | Hacker News Reader

I'd never heard of the STAR answering format mention in the article. It looks really useful and I'll definitely give it go next time.

Does anyone have any real world experience using these kind of techniques?

View on HN

I wrote this article in 2014, but left Rackspace a year ago.

The STAR answering format is the single clearest thing I'll take with me as a good interview practice.

It keeps both the interviewer and interviewee honest and on track. I find it helps figure out what a person actually did: Yes, a whole team shipped X, but what was your role in it? Tech Lead? What did that mean there? Responsibilities and how did that turn out?

Yes. And I tend to use it outside of interviews too.

It feels like a good way to communicate the context of something and my intent. Those things open up more avenues of discussion. But it could be annoying if you're trying to reach a conclusion on something instead.

When I'm interviewing, I expect candidates to answer in a STAR-style. If I ask something like "Do you use TDD?" I absolutely expect more than "Yes". I want to know how you used it, what worked well/badly. How did it affect your code? Give me an example. How did it affect your company? Less bugs? Faster or slower development? More fun? More arguments?

More broadly it feels a bit like you're demonstrating the PDCA/PDSA/OODA cycle.

Yes this is pretty common in my area (finance in London). Especially in the HR interview which is sometimes called a competency interview. You will get questions of the format "tell me about a time when you persuaded your manager to do something", or "tell me about a time when you had a conflict with another team member."

The interviewer generally expects a STAR format answer to these questions. Typically the candidate would come with two or three good stories in mind, and be able to tailor them to the particular question - many good workplace "war stories" would fit one or more of these sorts of questions if you emphasize different aspects.

So interviewees are supposed to read "how to interview" books to know that they should generate a STAR format answer? What does this have to do with being able to do a job?

I don't expect a candidate to have STAR response out of the box at all.

I would ask each part of STAR, directly to the candidate.

The goal is to actually understand what the candidate did, less what "we" did.

- Tell me about a time there was a production outage?

- What was your role in the team? Were you on call?

- [ questions about what happened ]

- How was it fixed? What was your part in this?

- What did your team change afterwards?

- How do you think about production outages now based on this one?

In my experience the recruiter gives the candidate enough coaching to know the format. I couldn't say how it might work for other routes.

I used STAR for interviewing at the US State Department. It's a very clear way to communicate and it prevents aimless rambling. It's a great way to get interviewees focused.

I suppose, but when required or expected, I tend to view it as an 80's relic (like the "behavioral" interview) that devolves into something resembling a beauty contest where you're graded on your "poise and confidence"--the style of your responses, in other words, instead of the substance.

We're very new at hiring but one of our advisors recommended the STAR approach and I feel it's been quite effective.

Context: hired 15 people in the last year.

Imagine you were interviewing a candidate, and you asked him what approach he'd take to a problem.

Would you take his word when he said he felt that his approach had been quite effective?

Hiring 15 people doesn't mean that your hiring process is effective.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com