This time of year, as I coach fellowship candidates during their interview process, one of the most frequent questions I get is whether to use the STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result) method for responding to behavioral interview questions. While its structured format offers significant advantages, relying too heavily on it can create pitfalls. A successful approach lies in understanding its pros and cons, and using it as a guide, not a script.
THE POWER OF STAR
This method is highly effective because it ensures your answer is complete, coherent, and relevant to the interviewer's needs.
- Clarity and Structure: It forces candidates to organize their thoughts logically. Instead of rambling, you deliver a concise narrative that clearly defines the problem, your personal contribution, and the measurable outcome. This makes it easy for the interviewer to follow and score.
- Demonstrates Competencies: It moves beyond simply describing skills (e.g., "I'm a great problem-solver") to proving them with real-world examples (e.g., "Here is a time I solved a problem...").
- Focuses on the Candidate's Role: The "Action" step demands that the candidate use "I" statements, preventing them from generalizing or deflecting credit to a team. It clearly highlights individual contribution and decision-making under pressure.
- Quantifiable Results: The "Result" section encourages candidates to include metrics, data, or measurable outcomes. This turns subjective stories into objective evidence of success.
