Pitfalls of the STAR method: common mistakes and solutions

You use the STAR method to make interviews more objective, but you’re still left with the same frustration afterwards: great stories, but little evidence. This is rarely down to the STAR format itself, but rather to how you ask follow-up questions, take notes and assess candidates.

Why STAR often goes wrong in practice

STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result) is designed to replace vagueness with specific behaviour. It works well in structured interviews, provided you actually steer the conversation towards evidence.

Many interviewers ask a single STAR question, hear a plausible story and move on to the next question. This results in an interview that appears well-structured, but which, in terms of substance, still relies on making a good impression and being persuasive.

The risk is particularly high with commercial profiles and candidates who are strong communicators. In blue-collar roles, the opposite is true: someone may well be good at their job, but they don’t present themselves as “marketable”, which means you can’t get the evidence to back it up.

The 7 biggest pitfalls of the STAR method (and what to do about them)

1) The candidate tells a “team story” rather than describing their own behaviour

Many answers tend to start with “we did this at the time…” or “the team decided…”. This makes it impossible to assess what the person actually did themselves, and therefore what you can expect in the context of your role.

• Follow-up question: “What exactly was your role, step by step?”
• Recovery question: “Which decisions did you make yourself, and which ones didn’t you?”
• Evidence note: Write down the verbs in the first-person singular form (analysed, discussed, corrected, checked).

2) The description is too broad and ends up being a summary of someone’s job

If “Situation” turns into a mini-CV, there’s a good chance you’ll end up with a general account that can’t be verified. A useful STAR example is clearly defined in terms of time, context and objective.

• Send at one time: “Choose one specific day or shift.”
• Request for context: “Which systems, machines, customers or stakeholders were involved?”
• Check relevance: “Why is this example representative of your way of working?”

3) The task remains unclear, which means you cannot set a benchmark

“Task” refers to the problem that needed to be solved and what was expected of the candidate. Without a task, you cannot properly assess the action.

• Follow-up question: “What was the aim and what was the deadline?”
• Follow-up question: “What were your responsibilities, and what were the conditions?”
• Check: “What would ‘good’ have looked like, according to your manager?”

4) Action is a list of skills (“I communicated well”)

This is one of the most common pitfalls of the STAR method. Candidates mention labels, not actions. You need examples of behaviour that you can link to success in the role.

• Question about sequence: “What did you do first, then, and then?”
• Ask about choices: “Which option did you deliberately not choose, and why?”
• Request for resources: “Which checklist, standard, tool or data did you use?”

5) The result sounds good, but is not measurable or does not relate to the candidate

“It all worked out in the end” doesn’t really say much. And “we met the target” could just be a coincidence. You’re looking for an impact that’s as specific as possible and can be linked to someone’s actions.

• Hardening: “What has changed in terms of time, quality, costs, output or safety?”
• Ownership: “Which part of this result can be directly attributed to your approach?”
• Evidence: “How was this measured or fed back internally?”

When it comes to figures, it helps to guide candidates towards a range. Not everyone knows the exact KPIs off by heart, but they can often give a rough estimate.

6) You ask several questions at once, which makes the answer superficial

A question such as “What was the situation, what did you do, how did you communicate, and what was the outcome?” encourages a quick, rounded-off account. You lose depth.

• Cut STAR into sections and round off each section with one check question.
• Use silence: waiting for 2 seconds after the answer often reveals further details.
• Summarise briefly and ask for correction: “If I’ve understood you correctly, you did X because of Y?”

7) You accept a “perfect” story without any friction or lessons to be learnt

In real life, things don’t always go smoothly. A story without dilemmas, mistakes or resistance often comes across as too smooth, or too rehearsed. That doesn’t mean someone is lying, but it does call for a reality check.

• Counter-question: “What was the most difficult moment during this process?”
• Learning component: “What would you do differently now?”
• Context check: “Who disagreed with you, and how did you resolve that?”

Practical questioning techniques for gathering evidence

STAR only becomes truly valuable when you consistently gather evidence that you can later use to compare candidates. That is also the essence of a structured interview: the same yardstick, the same level of depth.

Use fixed “evidence anchors” for each competence. Examples include safety, problem-solving skills, quality awareness and dealing with setbacks.

A brief evidence checklist (for each STAR response)

• Specificity: one moment, one context, one problem.
• Roll clarity: How did the candidate perform individually compared to the team?
• Options: What considerations were taken into account, and why?
• Result: measurable or verifiable, preferably using indicators.
• Reflection: What was learnt and put into practice afterwards?

Table: Common STAR answers and your best follow-up questions

This table will help you quickly turn vague answers into measurable behaviour.

Combining STAR with a scorecard (so you don’t rely on gut feeling)

Asking follow-up questions is one aspect. The other aspect is how you record and assess the answer. Without a scorecard, you’ll still end up comparing answers based on memory and impression.

A practical approach is to link STAR answers directly to a selection scorecard with behavioural anchors. This allows you to define what constitutes “sufficient” or “strong” evidence, in line with the role.

• Let the interviewers mark the candidates independently, and only then discuss the differences.
• Make a note of the facts: what someone did and what the effect was.
• Leave some room for “risks/areas for attention” so that you don’t rule everything out.

If you want to get this right on a consistent basis, it helps to use a standard interview structure and scorecard. See also How to conduct a structured interview in 8 steps and Creating a selection scorecard for hiring managers.

What does the research say about structured interviews and evidence-based probing?

Research has shown for decades that structured interviews are a better predictor than unstructured interviews. The difference lies not in “more polished questions”, but in consistency, scoring and the recording of specific behaviours.

A good place to start is the summary of the The American Psychological Association on selection procedures and validity, in which structured methods are shown to be more reliable and predictive than unstructured interviews.

As you process personal data during interviews, it is also important to pay close attention to the storage and retention periods for notes and scorecards. The The Dutch Data Protection Authority on job application data provides practical guidance on what you should and shouldn’t keep.

One final step that many interviewers overlook

Before you start the conversation, decide what evidence you need to give someone a 3 or a 5 for your core competencies. If you only think about this afterwards, you’ll automatically start looking for confirmation.

If you find that your team still tends to make snap judgements, or that candidates get through the selection process all too easily simply by “telling a good story”, start by addressing the basics. The principles set out in These 4 mistakes are costing you your best candidates tie in well with that.

Would you like to have a chat about how to ask better STAR follow-up questions, use scorecards more effectively, and establish a process that ensures you shortlist only the very best candidates each month? In that case, a short, in-depth session is often all it takes to make your interviews more focused and consistent.