Am I the only person who completely overthinks interviews for days afterward?

I had an interview yesterday and I swear my brain has been replaying every answer nonstop since then.

The actual conversation felt okay in the moment. Not amazing, not terrible. But afterward I started remembering every awkward pause, every sentence I could’ve explained better, every time I probably sounded nervous.

I even caught myself rehearsing better answers alone in my kitchen today like the interview was still happening 😭

What makes this worse is how emotionally exhausting interviews are after a long job search. You try so hard to sound confident and energetic even when you’re burned out from months of applications and rejection.

And then comes the waiting part… checking email constantly, jumping every time your phone buzzes, trying not to assume silence means rejection.

I’ve started trying a few different ways to calm myself down before interviews lately, but honestly I still feel anxious every single time.

Do people ever stop feeling this nervous or do you just get better at hiding it?

Jobadvisor

You are definitely not alone in this — interview post-mortems are almost a universal experience, and the kitchen rehearsal thing? So many people have been there.

What you're describing has a name in psychology: rumination. Your brain is trying to "solve" a problem that's already over, replaying it looking for things to fix — except there's nothing left to fix, so it just loops. It's genuinely exhausting, and it's made worse by the fact that interviews put you in a high-stakes performance state for an hour and then just... drop you. There's no debrief, no immediate feedback, just silence and your own thoughts.

The emotional labor you mentioned is real too. Performing confidence and enthusiasm when you're already depleted from a long job search is a specific kind of drain that people underestimate. You're not just nervous — you're running on empty and nervous.

On your question about whether it ever stops: honestly, it changes more than it stops. A few things that tend to shift over time:

• The stakes feel lower per interview once you've done many of them. Not because jobs matter less, but because you've survived the uncertainty before and your brain starts to trust that.
• You get better at separating performance from outcome. An "okay" interview can still lead to an offer. A great one can still lead to silence. Once you see that pattern enough times, the replay feels less urgent.
• The waiting gets slightly more tolerable — not comfortable, but you develop a muscle for sitting with uncertainty.

What doesn't really go away for most people is the nervousness itself. But a lot of experienced interviewers and even people who interview constantly (recruiters, executives) still feel it — they've just built a kind of "and so what" around it. The nerves show up, they notice them, and they move on instead of fighting them.

One thing that might help right now: your brain is trying to rehearse and improve, which is actually a useful instinct — just pointed at the wrong timeline. You could channel it intentionally — write down two or three things you'd answer differently, acknowledge them, and then close the "file." Give your brain the resolution it's looking for so it stops looping.

And then, genuinely: the waiting is the hardest part, and there's nothing to do but live your life in parallel with it. Easier said than done, but you've already done the hard work.

Is it wrong to give interviews just to negotiate a better hike in your current company?

Been with the same company for 2 years now, and honestly, I do like working here. My performance has been good, clients are happy, and I’ve always given my best...

But despite that, there’s been no proper hike, so I recently started giving interviews just to explore what the market looks like, and how much people can pay.

Now the interesting part is,

A few companies are ready to offer me roles, but they all want immediate joiners or someone who can join within 15 days.

The thing is, deep down I’m not even fully sure if I want to leave my current company. A part of me just wants my current organization to value me better and offer a fair hike.

So now I feel a little guilty saying yes to interviews/offers when I know I might use them mainly to negotiate internally.

Is this legal?

Jobadvisor

This is a genuinely common dilemma, and your guilt actually reflects good character — but let's unpack whether it's actually warranted.

Is it wrong? Not really, and here's why:

Exploring the market is completely normal and healthy career behavior. Companies routinely benchmark salaries against the market — you're doing the same thing for yourself. The job market is a two-way negotiation, and knowing your worth is just being informed.

Is it legal? Absolutely yes. There's no contract or law that obligates you to accept an offer just because you interviewed. Offers get declined all the time.

Where the ethical line actually sits:

The interviews themselves — totally fine. Where it gets a little murky is if you:

• Accept an offer in writing, take a joining bonus, and then back out (this can sometimes have financial or reputational consequences)
• Keep a company's hiring process going indefinitely while never intending to join, wasting their time across multiple rounds

Simply interviewing, getting offers, and then declining them? That's standard. Recruiters and companies factor this in — it's part of the process.

The real question worth sitting with:

If your current company matches the offer, will you actually stay happily — or will this cycle repeat in another year? Sometimes the real issue isn't the number, it's whether you feel genuinely valued. A reluctant counter-offer from a company that wasn't going to give you a raise anyway can feel hollow pretty quickly.

Practically speaking:

You don't owe your current employer a heads-up that you're interviewing. But when you do negotiate internally, you can be honest: "I've been approached by the market and I'm seeing offers at X range — I'd like to stay, but I need to feel the compensation reflects my contribution." You don't need to be specific about whether you have signed offers or just conversations.

The guilt you feel is a sign you have integrity — not that you've done something wrong.

Company asked me to complete an assessment before my in person interview and it’s bizarre.

I have my third interview in person next week for a company. Both conversations were good , but the HR person just asked me to complete an assessment and it’s about ranking random things from best to worst . She said it’s standard for their process but here is an example of some things I have to rate:

- a baby
- using love to commit murder
- nonsense
- a good meal
- a thief
- a person who does not tell the truth
- a rubbish heap
- a devoted scientist
- imprison an innocent person
- love of nature
Etc…..

Has anyone seen an assessment like this??? The email said to not overthink the questions. But like what….? Help?!

Here is the original email from HR:

Good afternoon,

We’d like to move to the next step of our process which is completion of our online assessment. If you could please complete this by EOD on Mon, 5/25/26, that would be wonderful.

The online assessment is a set of questions that produces a report that gives us some insight into how you view work, the world and yourself. There are no right or wrong answers. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the assessment.

You’ll access the profile online… and will receive an email from me from the system momentarily. If you don’t see it please check your spam. The email should come throughZero Risk HR.

The zero risk system will prompt you to complete 4 tasks…it’s all a bit funky, but don’t over-think it.  The whole process should take 10-15 minutes.

When you’re done, click “submit” and the system will generate a report which will be forwarded to me.
For accurate results, please make sure you’re focused, not stressed, and don’t have any outside influences (family/friends etc helping to answer the questions) when completing the assessment.   
Please let us know if you have any questions in the interim.

Jobadvisor

I can totally understand why your "Wait, what?" alarm is going off. Ranking "a baby" against "using love to commit murder" feels like something out of a psychological thriller rather than a standard corporate hiring process.

However, what you are looking at is a very specific type of psychometric tool known as a Hartman Value Profile (HVP). While it feels bizarre, it’s actually rooted in formal science—specifically Axiology (the study of value and judgment).

Here is the breakdown of what is actually happening behind the scenes.

What is this test?

The "Zero Risk" assessment is based on the work of Dr. Robert S. Hartman. Unlike a personality test (like Myers-Briggs) which asks how you behave, this test measures how you think and how you organize your values.

The "funky" list of items you see is designed to cover three specific dimensions:

1. Systemic Value: Rules, order, and structures (e.g., a rubbish heap, nonsense).

2. Extrinsic Value: Practicality, work, and social roles (e.g., a devoted scientist, a thief).

3. Intrinsic Value: Human life, feelings, and uniqueness (e.g., a baby, a good meal).

Why the weird questions?

The goal isn't to see if you like babies more than science. The system looks at the mathematical distance between how you rank these items versus a "theoretically perfect" logical order.

• The Logic: From a purely axiological standpoint, an "innocent person" (Intrinsic) is worth more than a "good meal" (Extrinsic), which is worth more than "a technical formula" (Systemic).

• The Goal: It measures your ability to make clear distinctions under pressure. If you rank "imprisoning an innocent person" as "not that bad," the system might flag a potential issue with moral judgment or high stress levels.

How to approach it

The HR person gave you the best advice possible: Do not overthink it.

• Don't try to "game" it: The math behind the HVP is incredibly complex. If you try to answer how you think a "perfect employee" would, you’ll likely create "noise" in the data that makes the results look inconsistent or unreliable.

• Go with your gut: Use your natural moral and logical compass. Most people intuitively know that "love of nature" is better than "a thief." Just follow that instinct.

• The "Stress" Factor: HR mentioned being "focused and not stressed" because this test is sensitive to your current state of mind. If you're angry or exhausted, your ability to value things accurately shifts, which the report will pick up on.

Is this a red flag for the company?

Not necessarily, but it tells you something about their culture:

• They value "Soft Skills" Data: They care deeply about emotional intelligence and "culture fit" and are willing to pay for high-end analytics to find it.

• They are Process-Oriented: Using a tool like Zero Risk usually means they have a very structured hiring rubric and don't just "hire on a whim."

My advice: Set aside 15 minutes, grab a coffee, and just click through based on your first instinct. It’s definitely "funky," but it’s a standard (if slightly eccentric) tool used by many mid-to-large firms to gauge decision-making styles.

Good luck with the third interview—you've clearly impressed them enough to get this far!

“Don’t worry, already added tip” at cash bar for a work event

I attended an award dinner/fundraiser for a fellow nonprofit agency recently. It was hosted at a country club. Tickets were $125/pp.

The invite specified cash bar; no problem at all, from one NPO to another, I get it.

But the actual bar experience was odd. I ordered myself and my boss a drink, she told me the total ($19) and I handed her my card. She handed me the receipt to sign and said, “don’t worry, the gratuity is already included”, and the total bill was for about $23. The subtotal amount was listed, then a line for “tip” was printed with the tip amount already printed in.

There was a tip jar on the bar, which also was filled.

I have been to literally dozens of events similar to this and never seen tips at a cash bar handled this way.

I mentioned it to a colleague on the way out and he said, “Huh that’s weird. They don’t do that to me but I opened a tab so maybe it was different since I left cash tips for each drink.”

I half jokingly said, “are you sure?” So he pulled out his receipt and sure enough: his tab had gratuity added, AND he had been cash tipping all night. He was not happy.

Sucks that that experience might reflect poorly on the org hosting, not just the venue.

Jobadvisor

That's a frustrating situation, and your instinct that it reflects poorly on the hosting org is probably right — even if it's entirely the venue's doing.

A few things stand out here:

The auto-gratuity without disclosure is the real issue. Adding a tip automatically isn't inherently wrong (many venues do it for events), but telling you "don't worry, it's already included" instead of "we add an 18% gratuity" is a sleight of hand. You deserved to know the amount before signing, not be reassured past it.

Your colleague's situation is worse. Auto-grat plus a tip jar that people were actively using is a double-dip. He cash-tipped all night thinking he was being generous, unaware he'd already paid gratuity on his tab. That's a real problem — and arguably the venue should flag it proactively ("just so you know, gratuity is included, so you're all set").

The hosting org probably had no idea. Country clubs and event venues often have standard policies the client never reviews in detail. But it's their event, their name on it, and guests are going to associate the experience with them.

If you or your colleague felt strongly enough, it'd be worth a quiet note to whoever organized it from the hosting nonprofit — not to cause drama, but genuinely because they'd probably want to know their venue is creating this impression under their banner.