> and that therefore we should use more STAR style questions
As an interviewer (multiple decades) I have an extremely low opinion of STAR style questions, to the point I have abandoned them entirely.
My first decade of interviewing and hiring was abysmal (when I look back on it), then I muddled for another decade or two with maybe 50% effectiveness. But more recently I've found a formula that seems to really works for me (success is well above 50%):
Engage in a relaxed conversation where I ask the interviewee to walk me through significant projects/tasks/home hobby stuff, anything with some meat regarding problem solving/approach/specific technical things I'm interested in.
I ask them to go start to finish, how did it start, what was problem being solved, why, what were the initial thoughts on how to solve, significant challenges, etc. It's easier for people to recall details when there is context and they are in a flow of information then just cold formula questions.
I interrupt with questions and dive deep into some areas that I want to know about (e.g. can you go into more detail on how you used technology X that you just mentioned) or just listen for a bit. You can pick up a ton of information by what is said, what isn't said, how it's said, etc.
I think you get more info with a relaxed open ended discussions sprinkled in with targeted relevant questions than with sets of formula questions that the person knows which type of answer is the "correct" answer.
As an interviewer (multiple decades) I have an extremely low opinion of STAR style questions, to the point I have abandoned them entirely.
My first decade of interviewing and hiring was abysmal (when I look back on it), then I muddled for another decade or two with maybe 50% effectiveness. But more recently I've found a formula that seems to really works for me (success is well above 50%):
Engage in a relaxed conversation where I ask the interviewee to walk me through significant projects/tasks/home hobby stuff, anything with some meat regarding problem solving/approach/specific technical things I'm interested in.
I ask them to go start to finish, how did it start, what was problem being solved, why, what were the initial thoughts on how to solve, significant challenges, etc. It's easier for people to recall details when there is context and they are in a flow of information then just cold formula questions.
I interrupt with questions and dive deep into some areas that I want to know about (e.g. can you go into more detail on how you used technology X that you just mentioned) or just listen for a bit. You can pick up a ton of information by what is said, what isn't said, how it's said, etc.
I think you get more info with a relaxed open ended discussions sprinkled in with targeted relevant questions than with sets of formula questions that the person knows which type of answer is the "correct" answer.