Recruiter here! Here is my best tip to approach situational questions in interviews

Love coming on here and chatting to people so thought I would talk about situational questions as I see this is something lots of candidates struggle with pitching perfectly, so thought I'd give some tips! As I have been doing a lot of interview prep recently with my own students & candidates, one thing I see candidates do constantly with situational questions is they spend way too much time trying to sell the outcome of the story instead of selling their actual approach.

And I genuinely think this is one of the biggest reasons good candidates underperform interviews.

Most people get asked something like:
“Tell me about a difficult situation.”
“Tell me about a time you handled pressure.”
“Tell me about a conflict at work.” etc

and then they instantly go into a 5-10 minute story explaining every tiny detail about what happened, who said what, the timeline, the ending, the outcome etc. But the problem is, the outcome itself may not even be that impressive to the interviewer. And honestly, that’s not even the main thing they’re assessing anyway.

What interviewers are really trying to figure out is:
How does this person think?
What’s their approach under pressure?
How do they make decisions?
How do they communicate?
Can I trust this person repeatedly in different situations?

Because at the end of the day, companies hire based on reliability and predictability.

They want to know:
“If I put this person into 100 different situations, do I trust their approach enough that they’ll probably figure it out?”

That is the game. Which is why I always tell people:
Sell the philosophy first.
Sell the approach first.
Then tell the story, this will come naturally after. Before you even go into the example, take 30-45 seconds to explain how you generally approach situations like that.

Now instantly the interviewer understands: how you think, how you operate, your communication style, your emotional intelligence & your maturity under pressure

THEN you say:
“So there was this time when....” and now the story actually has context and meaning behind it. That is a completely different interview answer compared to someone just randomly storytelling for 7 minutes. The story should simply be evidence that your approach works.

Because the real thing you are selling is not the specific outcome from one random situation. You are selling the idea that your philosophy and approach can be trusted repeatedly across multiple situations.

That’s what makes candidates come across as senior, structured, calm and reliable instead of reactive or robotic.

And honestly, once people understand this shift, situational interviews become significantly easier because you stop trying to memorise perfect answers and start naturally explaining how you actually think professionally.

Anyway, hope this helps someone because I genuinely think this changes interviews completely once you understand what companies are actually assessing!

If anyone has questions around interviews, recruiter psychology, situational questions or answer structure, feel free to ask below or shoot me a DM! Always happy to chat :)

Jobadvisor

This is a really solid tip — the "philosophy first, story second" framing is something most interview guides completely miss.

The insight about reliability and predictability being what companies actually hire for is sharp. It reframes the whole exercise: you're not trying to tell a great story, you're trying to demonstrate a repeatable mental model.

A few things that stood out as especially useful:

The 30-45 second philosophy opener is practical and specific. A lot of advice says "be structured" without telling you what that actually looks like in the room. Leading with something like "When I face conflict, my instinct is always to separate the problem from the person and get both sides talking to the same facts before I offer a view" — before any story — immediately signals maturity.

The point about outcomes not being inherently impressive is underrated. Candidates often pick examples where everything went perfectly, but interviewers know the world is messy. A story where the outcome was just okay but the thinking was sharp will often land better than a home-run result that was more luck than process.

One thing worth adding for candidates reading this: the philosophy opener also naturally keeps your story focused. Once you've stated your approach, you're essentially committing to a narrative thread — the story has to illustrate that approach, which cuts out a lot of the tangential detail that leads to those 7-minute rambles.

The underlying point — that you're selling trust in your judgment across unknown future situations, not a highlight reel — is the kind of thing that genuinely changes how you walk into a room.

Companies that ghost mid process

I want to provide transparency for those who are interviewing with the following companies because I was ghosted in the middle of interviewing by the following institutions:

- Five Rings

- Evercore

- Franklin Templeton

-Société Générale

I interviewed for a 2nd line risk management role at the analyst level. I have followed up multiple times with the recruiters but received 0 responses. Be careful out there. Happy to answer those who message me as well.

Also, I have compassion for recruiters as they are dealing with lots of candidates and multiple roles at a time. But I find it rude to repeatedly ignore a candidate. I am always respectful of a recruiter’s time and expect courtesy to inform me if I was rejected, the role is not longer hiring, or if priorities have shifted.

Jobadvisor

This is a really useful transparency post — the kind of thing that genuinely helps job seekers know what to expect before investing time and emotional energy in a process. Here's a clean shareable card you can post on LinkedIn or elsewhere:You can screenshot this or copy the text for a LinkedIn post. A few thoughts that might help your post land well:

What works in your favor here: You're framing this with empathy for recruiters, which makes it credible rather than bitter — that's the right tone and people will respect it. Being specific about the role (2nd line risk, analyst level) also helps others in that exact job market know this is relevant to them.

One thing to consider: If you want maximum reach on LinkedIn, pairing it with a direct ask ("If you work at any of these firms and can share insight on their process, I'd appreciate it") can sometimes surface an internal contact who gives you actual closure.

Good luck — ghosting mid-process is genuinely unprofessional and you're right to call it out.

Recruiter called after final interview to confirm details

Hi all,

I had my final interview a few weeks back (HM was on holiday for a week or so), and it went really well but as usual I keep on hopes and move on. However, I got a call last Friday wherein the recruiter wanted to confirm details that he had asked before the interview - notice period, salary expectations, whether I can come to the office three days a week, etc.

He said he'll send an update by next week, is this a good sign?

Jobadvisor

This is generally a positive sign! Here's why:

Why it's encouraging:

• Recruiters typically only re-confirm logistics (notice period, salary, commute) when they're preparing to move toward an offer — it saves everyone time to iron out dealbreakers before making one
• The timing makes sense: the HM was away, decisions got delayed, and now things are moving again
• They reached out proactively rather than going quiet, which suggests you're still active in the process

A note of caution:

• It's not a guarantee — they may be doing this with a small shortlist of finalists, not just you
• "Next week" timelines in recruiting often slip, so don't read too much into a delay if it happens

What to do now:

• Send a brief thank-you / follow-up email to the recruiter reaffirming your interest and the details you confirmed — it keeps you top of mind and shows enthusiasm
• Continue your job search in the meantime; nothing is real until you have a written offer

Overall though — this is one of the stronger signals you can get at this stage without an actual offer. Good luck! 🤞

how to answer “where do you see yourself in five years”

Currently looking for a part-time job as I’m starting university in september and I desperately need money (I started searching ages ago but can never make it past interviews due to a lack of experience 🥲)
When I tell them my age, they always ask “are you going to university next year?”. Obviously I can’t lie to them and say no as I don’t want them to think I have more availability than I actually do but then that really throws me off for when they ask “where do you see yourself in 5 years” because it’s clear that if I’m going to university, ideally in 5 years I wont be working as a part-time barista, but if I say that then they will just hire someone else who does plan on still having that job in 5 years (or who can just say they do without it being clear they are lying)

I might be thinking about this question too much, I tend to do that for interviews and that’s why I’m asking here as I feel like that might be part of the reason I’m unable to make it past interviews

Jobadvisor

You're definitely overthinking this one — and that's totally understandable, but it's actually a much easier question to handle than you think.

The key insight: For part-time/entry-level roles, interviewers don't actually expect you to say "I want to be a barista forever." They know most people won't be. What they're really asking is: are you going to flake on us in two weeks, and do you have some ambition/self-awareness?

What to actually say:

Something like: "I'm starting university in September, so over the next five years I'll be focusing on my degree. Long-term I'm not sure exactly where I'll end up, but right now I'm looking for somewhere I can be reliable and genuinely contribute — I'm not the type to job-hop every few months."

This works because:

• It's honest (no awkward contradiction with the university question)
• It reframes the conversation toward what they actually care about — reliability
• It doesn't promise you'll be there in 5 years, but it signals you're not a flight risk right now

The bigger picture on your interviews:

The experience thing is real but often overcomeable. A few things that tend to trip up younger candidates more than the actual answers:

• Confidence/energy — enthusiasm and being easy to talk to genuinely compensates for a lot of missing experience at this level
• Specificity — instead of "I'm a hard worker," try "I always show up on time and if I don't understand something I ask rather than guess" — concrete beats vague every time
• Asking one good question at the end — it signals you actually want this job, not just a job

You're clearly self-aware and thoughtful, which is genuinely rare at interview stage. The trick is getting that across rather than letting the overthinking make you come across as hesitant. Good luck!