Right. The Situation—and the Task and Results too—are only there to understand the Actions. The Actions are what allows the interviewer to predict the candidate's future performance on the job, but a story with only Actions would be odd and hard to interpret :)
The trap underneath this: the Situation is the safe part — you’re just narrating facts, nothing you can be judged on yet. So under pressure people expand the bit that feels safest and rush the Action, which is the only part actually being assessed. Catching yourself going long on backstory is a decent real-time tell that you’re dodging the exposed bit.
This post touches a nerve and reflects a recent experience.
It’s been years since I went through big tech interviews.
At first, I was failing coding and system design interviews. It took weeks to get back into interview shape. It’s painful and requires daily practice.
More recently, I failed two final interview loops because of the behavioral interview, even after marathoning through the technical rounds. That hit even harder.
My most recent learnings:
1. Remember the vibe, not the details
I don’t remember the details of most presentations I’ve watched, but I remember how they made me feel.
2. Focus the situation on the problem.
Rather than setting up a lot of context, highlight what needed to be solved.
3. Spend time on results and learnings.
Everyone wants to hear about success and growth.
4. CARL > STAR.
If you’ve only heard of STAR, look up CARL.
5. Take a deep breath before every question.
You need to quiet the fight-or-flight response.
6. Oversell it.
Almost no one has perfectly smooth stories from problem to success. Unfortunately, you have to treat it more like an Instagram Reel than a long-form podcast.
7. Try to put yourself in the other person’s shoes.
They’re busy, they’re in meetings, and the interview means far less to them than it does to you.
---
Most importantly, take everything I said above with a grain of salt.
Losing two final loops at behavioral after marathoning the technical rounds is the telling detail — technical rounds test whether you can do the work; the behavioral round tests whether you can retrieve evidence of it under pressure, and almost nobody practices the retrieval. And CARL's addition of the learning step is quietly the interview-relevant one: reflection is the part that can't be improvised on the spot.
The backstory scope creep observation matches what I see in career coaching - but with an added layer for career changers. When someone is changing careers rather than just roles, the backstory feels load-bearing: if they don't explain where they came from, they think the interviewer won't understand where they're going. So the backstory becomes an apology or a pre-emptive defense. Knowing to cut it short is right - but first you have to notice what the backstory is actually doing.
"They want to get an accurate sense of your abilities and experience, but won’t be able to, because they’re asleep." Haha epic!!
Right. The Situation—and the Task and Results too—are only there to understand the Actions. The Actions are what allows the interviewer to predict the candidate's future performance on the job, but a story with only Actions would be odd and hard to interpret :)
The trap underneath this: the Situation is the safe part — you’re just narrating facts, nothing you can be judged on yet. So under pressure people expand the bit that feels safest and rush the Action, which is the only part actually being assessed. Catching yourself going long on backstory is a decent real-time tell that you’re dodging the exposed bit.
I've realized I've got a thoroughness problem 😅 Thanks, Wes. Your articles are always useful!
100% agree!
This post touches a nerve and reflects a recent experience.
It’s been years since I went through big tech interviews.
At first, I was failing coding and system design interviews. It took weeks to get back into interview shape. It’s painful and requires daily practice.
More recently, I failed two final interview loops because of the behavioral interview, even after marathoning through the technical rounds. That hit even harder.
My most recent learnings:
1. Remember the vibe, not the details
I don’t remember the details of most presentations I’ve watched, but I remember how they made me feel.
2. Focus the situation on the problem.
Rather than setting up a lot of context, highlight what needed to be solved.
3. Spend time on results and learnings.
Everyone wants to hear about success and growth.
4. CARL > STAR.
If you’ve only heard of STAR, look up CARL.
5. Take a deep breath before every question.
You need to quiet the fight-or-flight response.
6. Oversell it.
Almost no one has perfectly smooth stories from problem to success. Unfortunately, you have to treat it more like an Instagram Reel than a long-form podcast.
7. Try to put yourself in the other person’s shoes.
They’re busy, they’re in meetings, and the interview means far less to them than it does to you.
---
Most importantly, take everything I said above with a grain of salt.
Losing two final loops at behavioral after marathoning the technical rounds is the telling detail — technical rounds test whether you can do the work; the behavioral round tests whether you can retrieve evidence of it under pressure, and almost nobody practices the retrieval. And CARL's addition of the learning step is quietly the interview-relevant one: reflection is the part that can't be improvised on the spot.
The backstory scope creep observation matches what I see in career coaching - but with an added layer for career changers. When someone is changing careers rather than just roles, the backstory feels load-bearing: if they don't explain where they came from, they think the interviewer won't understand where they're going. So the backstory becomes an apology or a pre-emptive defense. Knowing to cut it short is right - but first you have to notice what the backstory is actually doing.