Interview day

Greg Wyatt • June 11, 2024

Last week’s article was about interview preparation and now I’ll share my best advice on the interview itself.

Or rather the day of the interview, because that’s just as important as what’s in the interview.

This is mainly about in-person interviews; however, I’ll add a section on video interviewing at the end.

Today we’ll cover:

  1. Moving from preparation to interview

  2. Interview pre-flight checklist

  3. How to give a good non-interview interview experience

  4. Managing interview nerves

  5. How to sell yourself, and why that’s the wrong way to think about it

  6. STAR and CARL, why and why not

  7. Answering questions through relevant stories

  8. The questions you should ask and why they matter

  9. On video interviews

Next week is on what happens after the interview.

  1. Moving from preparation to interview

“Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth” Mike Tyson

Preparation is key, for sure.

But as soon as the interview starts, you can only influence how you are perceived.

Sometimes a decision may have nothing to do with your efforts, and everything to do with what’s happening elsewhere in process.

There’s a lot stacked against job seekers, which is why it’s so important to focus on the steps and processes you do have control over.

That’s one reason why this series is called Jobseeker Basics.

As complex as it can be to find a job in this market if you get the basics right, you give yourself the best odds.

  1. Interview pre-flight checklist

  • Set your clothes out the night before - use your smartest clothes, unless they’ve said otherwise, and have them presented as well as possible, whether ironed, cleaned, polished

  • Plan out your route to the interview allowing you to arrive 10-15 minutes early

  • Make sure you’ve read through all the documentation and done suitable preparation

  • Prepare killer questions (this gets its own section)

  • If possible, print them out with you, together with two copies of your CV (one for and one for them), and notes on where to go / who you are meeting

  • Good night’s sleep with little to no alcohol, and a healthy meal

  • Wake up at a normal time (unless the interview dictates otherwise)

  • Allow time for solitary activity, like a walk or Sudoku

  • Check traffic reports / public transport delays early and leave with plenty of time

  1. How to give a good non-interview interview experience

When does the interview start?

Is it when you are greeted by your interviewer?

Perhaps; however, I’d treat the interview as starting the first time you engage with the employer.

How you apply, how you respond to invites, how you confirm your availability, all contribute to influencing a process in which flawed humans have biases caused by our experiences.

Perhaps not if it were fair and even, yet your responsiveness won’t work against you, and may help.

A key element in any interview is to understand what you are like to work with.

It goes to follow you should show your best self at interview.

Yet, interviewers are canny to this and will find ways to find out what they believe your real self to be.

This means you have to be canny to their canniness.

Where you can, win over:

  • The security guard who lets you in the gate

  • The receptionist

  • The HR admin team that arrange the interview

  • The person who brings you through to interview

  • The interviewer’s first impression of you

  • Their last as you say goodbye

  • The person who lets you out the door when you leave

Perhaps it’s unfair for employers to ask what the receptionist thinks of you, in their effort to find out the ‘things unsaid’ part of an interview.

But if you know it can happen, make it work for you.

  1. Managing interview nerves

Nerves can be a problem for many at an interview, even affecting how you prep, your rest and your sustenance.

Now, I am not a medical professional and you should seek advice reflective of your circumstance, such as if you have high blood pressure.

However, I recommend reading into:

  • Mindfulness meditation for better sleep. Example.

  • Box breathing. A proven technique used by the Navy Seals to centre them in times of stress. It may even, over time, change how your body reacts to stress:

    • 4 seconds in through your nose

    • hold for 4

    • 4 seconds out through your mouth

    • hold for 4

    • rinse and repeat.

  • Take a breath, or a sip of water, to centre yourself before answering a question.

  • Regular exercise, if you can, to manage stress levels

I haven’t interviewed for some time, as a candidate, but I don’t mind saying that I sometimes have anxiety, occasionally panic attacks, and difficulty getting to sleep during times of stress.

The meditation technique is so effective at bedtime, when I need to use it, that I’m often out like a light moments after thinking I’ll never get to sleep. Really useful for ‘big day’ nerves.

These techniques have been helpful for me over the years, and I hear they help many job seekers too.

  1. How to sell yourself, and why that’s the wrong way to think about it

Interviews are fundamentally a negotiation, where you propose your value in exchange for the value offered by a job.

The give and take of an interview has a large part in the outcome.

I mentioned Chris Voss, and ‘Never Split the Difference’ in last week’s article, which gives great insight into negotiation.

A key element of negotiation is deep listening. Listening to understand and respond, more than listening to answer.

Getting to the root of what an interviewer wants is key to giving them a suitable answer.

You can read more about this here.

While some employers do have tricky interview processes, most just want to find the most suited person for their role.

Most hiring managers are busy people who aren’t trained in recruitment, so flaws in their approach often aren’t down to intent, more down to habits and practice.

Think about when you were hiring - did you deliver the perfect interview? What were you looking for in your candidates?

It’s often said by jobseekers that “I don’t know how to sell myself.”

I suggest selling is not a skill you need at an interview (unless it’s a commercial role, of course) - mainly you need to be the version of yourself that is good at your job, and how you are at work. Professionally authentic, rather than your unvarnished self.

Focus on listening to understand, then talk about how you can help solve their problems like you would in a constructive meeting at work.

Which is good sales, ha!

  1. STAR and CARL, why and why not

You’ve no doubt read about STAR (situation task action result) and CARL (context action result learning).

They are helpful to understand, especially for competency questions, because they allow you to convey your answer in a way that has meaning for an interviewer.

Situation : the background to the example you are sharing, as it relates to the question you are asked (similar to context)

Task : what you had to do to solve the problem alluded to in the question

Action : the steps you took to achieve this

Result : what actually happened

( Learning : how you’d improve next time)

However, it’s a mode of thinking, NOT a framework to apply rehearsed, monotonous answers to every question.

The words have to be balanced with how you say them naturally.

A robotic, over-practiced answer will only be memorable for how you said it, not for what you said.

Indeed, these are better described as storytelling frameworks, than interview answer frameworks.

Learn how to tell your story with STAR and CARL.

Listen to what the interviewer wants, and give them what they need to see you as a viable future colleague.

Oh and if they go bananas and ask what fruit you’d be, forgive them and play the game.

I’d be an orange because nothing rhymes with orange.

  1. Answering questions through relevant stories

Ensure you understand how your skills, achievements and experience will fulfil the role you have applied for.

Something talked about in last week’s article - here’s the link again

Often the criteria to demonstrate are set out in the job descriptions.

Often by the challenges facing a business, which you might glean through research.

Often through the gaps in between - context that may be missing from visible evidence, but you might understand through the listening principles above.

If you’ve prepared fully, understand what they are looking for and know how to access the knowledge you have: answering questions is simply about interpreting how you can help, in a way that has meaning to your audience.

This is where STAR is useful, as a way of interpreting your story. If you don’t have sufficient information to convey answers clearly, make sure to clarify.

Think of your story as a short snappy tale.

To the point and told in under a couple of minutes.

Audiences remember good stories; few remember dry statements, told through waffle.

Tell your story in the right way.

  1. The questions you should ask and why they matter

If you were to ask me the one common element that I find memorable in candidates, it’s the questions they ask me .

If you are allowed to ask questions, it’s a chance for you to change the narrative.

You can do so at the start of an interview:

  • before we start, may I ask what outcomes you want from this role? I’d love to hear your priorities, so I can show you how I can help

You can do so at the end of a question:

  • could I confirm my understanding? Do you mean….

You can do so at the end of an answer:

  • does that answer your question?

You can do so at the end of an interview, by asking questions to help learn if the role is right for you.

If employers aren’t willing to answer questions, there’s a snapshot of their culture.

What I wouldn’t ask is questions that leave you memorable for the wrong reasons.

[Try not to put interviewers on the back foot with questions like “Do you have any concerns about my candidacy?”]

The benefit of questions, for me, is that it moves the interview to more of an unrehearsed conversation.

Interviewers know the questions they want to ask, and if they work to a robust framework, you’ll be measured fairly from your answers against other interviewees.

But you can stand out through how you take control of the interview, appropriately with questions.

When I think back on most of my business wins, from client meetings, it’s been from the questions I’ve asked - not how I’ve pitched my services.

What kind of questions would I ask?

I’d want to know about the outcomes they want to reach, the problems they want to solve.

The structure of the team, and how the role has come about.

Their culture and how their teams experience it.

What challenges the hiring manager has, and how this role might help.

How this role might develop over time, and what my future might look like.

How they measure and reward success.

The challenges the company has, or any recent wins.

How things are changing, and how that might affect the role.

I’d want to understand their time frames and who else they are interviewing.

Everything that would help me make an objective decision.

  1. On video interviews

Many companies rely solely on video interviewing, especially since the pandemic. Convenient, easy to arrange, people can interview from different locations. Great!

They do invite a more casual approach to interviewing for better or worse, and while your interview might reveal things they didn’t mean to through their background, that’s not something in your control.

Consider:

  • check you have good, stable connectivity, where you intend to make the call. Any issues? How about interviewing from a friend’s if your internet access is poor?

  • try out their system beforehand. Make sure you won't have access issues on the day

  • practise with friends. See how you come across on a call, where interviewers are more reliant on the tone of voice than body language to gauge your personality

  • ensure your lighting is adequate with a suitable background

  • frame your head and shoulders centrally on-camera

  • look at the camera for a semblance of eye contact

  • use sticky note reminders around your screen - your interviewer can’t see them

  • treat it as a formal interview. Attend as you would in person, with a suitable dress code and presentation

That’s it for this week. No doubt I’ve missed something - feel free to reply if you have any questions, and I can work on improving the article.

Note - I haven’t included elements like presentations and tasks. These are so contextual, that you are better off researching elsewhere on the internet for specific preparation.

Thanks for reading.

Regards,

Greg

De Facto Automated Rejection & You

By Greg Wyatt • November 12, 2026
While 2027 remains surprisingly far away, with plenty of time to start applications, attend interviews, gain an acceptable job offer and even start work, I'm already thinking about the biannual update to A Career Breakdown Kit. Only, nothing's really changed in terms of what might affect the steps you take, overall, since the last update, so any changes are likely to only be minor. This might surprise you, if you feel that AI has increasingly eaten into how applications are administered and assessed. While the changes that are actually happening make the treatise of this article more important, which is to look at how recruitment actually happens in informing your strategy. Changes that may not be widespread but are emerging - deprioritising advertising roles in favor of sourcing (looking for candidates), because of the volume of applications; adding extra friction into applications, penalising relevant candidates because of AI applications made automatically; even discounting applications wholesale if they come from they are sent by a mass-apply service. I do see people regularly showcasing features of various ATSs over the years that seem to show automated rejections, yet these features rarely worked well, and haven't changed much in two decades. As I mentioned to Martyn, at a recent Recruitment Technology standards launch in the UK, "it doesn't matter how good the technology layer is, if the human layer is the problem". Martyn Redstone is Head of Responsible AI at Warden, and I'm fortunate that he will be joining me and Simon Ward on a LinkedIn Live as we discuss what this topic means for job seekers. I'll update this newsletter with the event when it's live. In the meanwhile, Martyn is well worth following to understand what's actually happening with AI in recruitment. It's still important to acknowledge the poor experiences job seekers have, and to try and shed light on what is happening, in what I call: 6 - De Facto Automated Rejection and You When there’s any discussion over Beat the Bots, job seekers often assume they are unfairly treated, while people from the recruitment profession deny it happens at all - “that’s not how the ATS works”, “we don’t use AI that way”, and so on. The best objection I see to the common recruiter stance is, “What does it matter how we are rejected, if we were never fairly considered?” That question is the heart of this chapter and, to answer it, I need to propose a new term: De facto automated rejection. Definition: where an element of a recruitment process leads to an application being either rejected or not considered, irrespective of capability, contribution, or potential alignment. That may sound an awful lot like Automated Rejection, yet it isn’t the same thing. Examples: No application after number 100 considered Illegal discrimination Legal discrimination - location, salary, industry, qualification, etc - legally permissible decisions driven by assumption Relying on configured ranking within an ATS to prioritise applications Not considering candidates who aren't picked up by a Boolean search (sourcing) Filter questions at advert stage (e.g. do you have a work permit?) Applying after the vacancy is at interview stage And many more All de facto automated rejections have one thing in common, and it isn’t automation - it’s human decision-making, including shortcuts and assumptions. Some of those examples above are cited when talking about auto-rejects. However, these are all consequences of human intervention and the choice not to intervene. There are an increasing number of AI products that automate these steps, with the requirement of human oversight - I've yet to speak to a recruiter that wholly relies on them, and few who don't view every application. This is one reason why ATS Compliance and Beat the Bots are a red herring. The advice fails not because it’s wrong, but because it optimises the wrong layer. The system is only a component in the process, governed by humans. If you misdiagnose de facto automated rejection as a technical problem, you’ll keep trying to outsmart systems instead of changing how you’re seen, found, and prioritised by people. Understanding how recruiters handle their process and giving them what they need in an application has to take priority. While the same steps that “optimise human compliance” are implicitly system-compliant. The challenge is that human compliance relies on what makes us individual: our skill level, our insight, our psychology, our biases, our resources and the time available to us. As well as how you navigate these. Without forgetting that we are people like you, often trying to do too much with too little. It’s no wonder our frustrations mirror yours, with the difference that we earn a salary for our experiences. ATS Compliance feels more comfortable, because it gives a clear direction, even if it’s the wrong one. It is true we use filters and keywords to prioritise how our applications are presented to us. We do the same when we look for candidates, whether on LinkedIn, job boards, our ATS or other means. All this does is present results in a way that allows us to spend more attention on those that meet the criteria we have set. When we review those results, the way that information is presented informs whether we progress them or not. To be human compliant, your application has to be discoverable, then it has to convert interest. Fail on either front and you’ll either be rejected or you won’t hear at all. If humans are the reasons you are rejected for reasons unrelated to capability or contribution... well, I think that’s rather more problematic than technology. Beat the Bots and ATS Compliance aren’t just a red herring - they can actively hold you back. Because they place the wrong priority by presenting a strategy, rather than simple hygiene. Your wider strategy should encompass far more than applications - getting found, starting conversations, doorknocking, networking and all these other opportunities that can get you closer to a job: These are fundamentally covered in a human compliance strategy. I just happened to call it A Career Breakdown Kit instead, with how to do these in Parts 2 and 3. I realise this may create a feeling of overwhelm, when you realise there is much more to a better application than the transactional steps of ATS compliance. Yet these same steps will improve every aspect of your job search and some are straightforward to take - go to www.bwrecruitment.co.uk/resources for the free CV template that is an easy starting point. 

Salary on the job description

By Greg Wyatt • November 11, 2026
I've written many variations on the article below, over the years, and it seems sensible to revisit given the UK government's announcements around salary transparency. On the whole, I'm for it, with the many advantages it brings. But like a lot of things in recruitment, there is a more involved discussion to be had, especially when this fix treats the symptoms, not the rot. That's not to say the fix isn't worth doing, just that it won't fix many of the problems underlying a lack of transparency. This article is a little dated, in terms of the research shared, but I think the points are as relevant as ever. Originally published May 2023 Salary on the Job Description? Yes, the headline is trolling. The question should be ‘salary on the job advert?’ You wouldn’t confuse a job description with an advert, would you? This is a subject rife with disagreement around ethics and practicality, and worth broaching again considering recent campaigns in the UK to increase salary transparency and ban the ‘what’s your current salary?’ question. Let’s focus on some practicalities first, based on UK research I ran last year for my “Accessing a Candidate Short Market” guide:  Job boards can penalise you for not listing salary. As of December 2021, Totaljobs penalises adverts that don’t list salary, and these aren’t sent out as job alerts to candidates (who may be passive). These adverts are considered sub-standard. Unlisted salaries attract fewer qualified applications. This was estimated to be between 20% and 45% fewer, across the job boards I talked to. LinkedIn reported that not only can you expect more applications, you may also expect better-qualified applications when the salary is advertised. My work supporting senior job seekers confirms this - many would not apply to adverts that had no salary or "competitive salary" because they felt this was a waste of their time. There is less emphasis on salary negotiation from the candidate side, due to transparency in pay. This is a key part of equity, relating to gender, race and intersectional identity. According to Payscale 's research, white men are most likely to negotiate the highest salary. It’s simple – if you advertise vacancies and don’t list salary, you risk receiving fewer, less suitable applications. Then there’s the ethical question, where a common argument is that there is ‘no ethical reason that salaries can’t be listed’. Now, while I’m a proponent for advertising salaries, where possible, I think this ethical argument isn’t the right one - ‘can’t be’ is a strong statement. I think a better question is ‘how does this do harm’ when establishing reasons for not listing salary. This balances pragmatism with the most important aspect of ethics. It can be a complicated question too in scenarios like this: How do you establish salary transparency for job families across multiple regions where the local pay is established by HQ in one country? Currency exchange rates and cost of living mean that a fair salary one day may not be the next, therefore flexibility in not listing salary may be ethically the right thing to do if the intent is right. What about new vacancies that serve to solve a business problem and can be recruited at different levels? What about practical situations like recruiting hard-to-fill vacancies during a wider redundancy programme, whereby listing a salary would create concern in unrelated areas of that unsettled business? It's not always as simple a question as we’d like to think. If you’re facing a complex situation in advertising a role, I recommend describing your stance in the advert itself, if you legitimately can’t state the salary. At the same time, as we’ve seen in the US, legislation to enforce salary transparency creates situations such as Netflix apparently advertising a range of $90-900k. Who does that help? The problem with this kind of legislation is that companies can comply while continuing the behaviour that led to the legislation in the first place. It’s palliative, rather than treating unfairness at its root. We should also consider the unforeseen consequence of salary transparency, such as this research which appears to show a reduced link between performance and pay: Influence of Pay Transparency Helping candidates negotiate better pay or terms is a privilege I enjoy. And there's more to understanding someone's existing remuneration than simply establishing whether they can afford to move. Sometimes these conversations reveal that someone is being underpaid. With evidence of what their experience and contribution might command elsewhere, they can go back to their current employer and make the case for a pay rise. That might mean they decide not to move at all. Which is a perfectly good outcome for them, even if it isn't for the vacancy in the short term. It also opens up the counteroffer conversation early. If their employer could resolve the reason they're considering leaving, I'd rather understand that before they accept an offer elsewhere. There's a benefit for prospective employers too. A new employer may budget £52,000 for a role, believing that to be market rate, based on historic data. But if conversations with suitably experienced candidates reveal that their existing remuneration, expectations and other opportunities consistently indicate otherwise, there's good reason to revise either the budget or the requirements. If that budget does prove unrealistic, and it's the same budget other team members are measured against, it can also create the argument to revisit everyone's salaries - subject to affordability, of course. After all, it's cheaper to retain fairly paid staff with all the knowledge they have than to replace them. Of course, conversations with candidates aren't a substitute for proper salary benchmarking. But they can reveal problems that wouldn't otherwise be apparent. There are also situations where understanding the whole package matters. What if someone currently receives a 16% pension contribution and moves to a role offering a 10% pay rise but only a 5% pension? Car allowances, RSUs, tax-efficient packages? Remuneration is a more involved conversation than simply salary. And none of this means someone's existing salary should determine what they're worth to their next employer. If their previous salary was unfair, using it to determine their next salary risks perpetuating that unfairness. And if an employer routinely offers a 15% increase on previous earnings, the new salary may have little relationship to the contribution that person can make. It makes sense to pay commensurately with contribution and capability, rather than what may be irrelevant history. So I understand the reasons for wanting to ban questions about previous salary. They're often used badly. But I think there's an important distinction between asking to establish someone's worth and asking to understand their circumstances. One can perpetuate unfairness. The other can help identify and correct it. If legislation restricts these conversations, I'll adapt how I offer this support. But I'd hope any restrictions recognise the difference between using salary history to determine an offer and voluntarily discussing remuneration to help someone make better decisions. I hope you’ve found these thoughts helpful to start a broader conversation in your business. My thoughts aren’t set in stone, so please let me know your opinions if you disagree. Thanks for reading. Regards, Greg p.s. While you are here, if you like the idea of improving how you recruit, lack capacity or need better candidates, and are curious how I can help, these are my services: Commercial, operational and technical leadership recruitment Manage part or all of your recruitment on an individually designed basis for one client Outplacement support Email me on greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk if you'd like to discuss.