The STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result) method has become the gold standard for interviewing. You hear it everywhere – from recruiters, hiring managers, and career coaches. It’s presented as a structured way for candidates to provide complete, concise answers. But the more I observe its use in the real world, the more I believe that it is inherently biased and flawed.
The Problem with STAR
The STAR method assumes that every candidate:
- Has been trained to answer that way – Many highly capable professionals, particularly those outside large corporate structures, have never been coached in STAR. Their natural storytelling style may not align with this robotic structure, leading interviewers to falsely judge them as unprepared.
- Thinks and communicates linearly – STAR favors those who speak in a strict, sequential manner. But not everyone’s brain operates in linear storytelling. Some communicate holistically, weaving context, strategy, and results dynamically. STAR penalizes these thinkers for not adhering to a template.
- Has ‘heroic’ stories ready – STAR often demands a ‘big impact’ result, sidelining those whose work is meaningful but collective or ongoing. For instance, operational roles, maintenance engineers, or team integrators often contribute deeply without a single Hollywood-ending “result” story.
- Can rapidly compartmentalize complex experiences – It’s unfair to judge someone’s expertise or value by their ability to slice multidimensional work into four neat boxes under time pressure.
My Experience: Delivery and Receiving Side of STAR
I’ve been on both sides of the STAR method – as an interviewee trying to deliver structured STAR responses, and as an interviewer receiving them. Frankly, I didn’t like it either time.
As a candidate, STAR felt unnatural and forced. Trying to box my real, multifaceted experiences into this rigid format made me sound rehearsed rather than authentic. It took away from the deeper insights I could have shared about my thinking process and approach.
As an interviewer, listening to STAR responses often felt equally painful. Candidates would recite robotic, pre-packaged stories that didn’t reveal much about their true thought process, adaptability, or attitude. I wanted genuine conversation, not canned narratives.
Free Speaking Encourages Authentic Evaluation
Instead of STAR, I advocate for structured but free conversation in interviews. Let candidates speak to their experiences naturally, ensuring:
- Guided time management: Provide gentle reminders if they are running long, rather than enforcing STAR for brevity.
- Prompt-based exploration: Ask clear follow-up questions to fill gaps, rather than penalizing them for missing a “STAR component.”
- Recognition of diverse communication styles: Value depth of thought, complexity, and authenticity over rehearsed delivery.
What Really Matters
At the end of the day, interviews should be about who the person is, what they’ve done, and how they think – not whether they memorized a storytelling formula. STAR was designed to combat rambling and to help candidates structure responses, but it has become a gatekeeping tool that favors the coached and the scripted.
We need to move towards interviews that respect:
Authentic communication
Cultural and cognitive diversity
Depth and nuance over neatness
I believe it’s time to retire STAR as a default interviewing metric and replace it with genuine, human conversation. The goal is not to hear the “right format” – it is to deeply understand the value and potential of the person sitting in front of you.