Category: Interviewing & Selection

  • Career Positioning Starts With the Market, Not the Resume

    Career Positioning Starts With the Market, Not the Resume

    Career Positioning Starts With the Market, Not the Resume

    For many job seekers, the resume becomes the center of the search.

    They rewrite it. Reformat it. Add keywords. Remove keywords. And they still get pulled into debates about resume conventions that belong to an era of paper copies and filing cabinets.

    Some of that work matters, but a resume is not a career strategy.

    It is the final expression of one.

    Before a candidate can be positioned effectively, there is a more important question to answer:

    What does the market actually need?

    That sounds obvious, but it is often skipped.

    Candidates naturally begin with themselves. What have I done? What skills do I have? What titles have I held? What should I put on my resume?

    Those are necessary questions, but they are incomplete. Employers are not evaluating a candidate in isolation. They are evaluating that person against a specific set of business problems, priorities, constraints, and expectations.

    The better question is:

    What problems are employers in this market trying to solve, and where does this candidate fit into that?


    The Best Career Positioning Starts With Investigation

    When I work with someone moving into a new industry, function, or level of leadership, one of the most useful things I can do is learn the market before trying to position the candidate.

    That often means speaking with people who already know the field well: operators, executives, hiring leaders, recruiters, and others who have spent enough time in the sector to understand where the friction really is.

    The conversations themselves are rarely complicated. I want to know what is changing, where companies are struggling to hire, which skills are becoming harder to find, what strong candidates understand that weaker ones often miss, and what problems leaders in that space are thinking about now.

    People who know their industries deeply are often remarkably generous with that information.

    More importantly, those conversations reveal something job descriptions rarely do.

    They reveal context.


    Job Descriptions Tell You What the Role Is. People Tell You Why It Matters.

    A job description may say that a company wants someone with ten years of experience, strong leadership skills, strategic thinking, and knowledge of a particular system.

    That tells you what they wrote down.

    It does not necessarily tell you what is driving the hire.

    The company may be scaling quickly and lack the leadership infrastructure to support that growth. Turnover may have become expensive. The previous person in the role may have struggled to influence senior stakeholders. A regulatory change may have created a capability gap. Or the organization may have plenty of technical expertise but no one who can translate that expertise into commercial results.

    Those distinctions matter.

    Two candidates with similar resumes can look dramatically different once the actual business problem is understood.

    One may be qualified.

    The other may be relevant.

    That is what good positioning is trying to uncover.


    Transferable Skills Have to Be Translated

    This becomes especially important when someone is changing industries.

    Candidates are often told to focus on transferable skills. That advice is correct, but incomplete. A transferable skill only becomes useful when an employer can recognize its value in their own environment.

    A senior athletic coach, for example, may have spent years managing talent, building high-performance teams, navigating complex stakeholder relationships, recruiting, developing people, allocating resources, handling conflict, and making decisions under intense performance pressure.

    Those capabilities are highly transferable.

    But if that person simply presents themselves as a coach and expects a corporate employer to make the connection, much of that value may be missed.

    The same challenge appears with military leaders, educators, founders, nonprofit executives, healthcare professionals, technical specialists, and people returning to the workforce after long absences.

    Career transitions often fail not because the candidate lacks relevant experience, but because the relationship between their experience and the employer’s problem has never been made explicit.

    That translation is part of the strategy.


    The Resume Comes Later

    Once the market is understood, the resume becomes easier to write.

    You know what to emphasize, what language matters, which accomplishments are relevant, which parts of the candidate’s history provide useful evidence, and which are simply distractions.

    More importantly, you know what story the document is supposed to tell.

    At that point, the resume is no longer a collection of responsibilities. It becomes evidence and context. It helps the reader understand who the candidate is, what kinds of problems they have solved, how they have created value, and why their experience matters to the work ahead.

    That is a much stronger document than one created by starting with a blank page and asking, “How can we make this sound better?”


    The Same Intelligence Should Shape the Entire Search

    Good positioning should not stop with the resume.

    The same market intelligence should shape who the candidate networks with, which companies they target, what questions they ask, how they describe their experience, what stories they prepare for interviews, and which opportunities they decide are not worth pursuing.

    That is where career strategy becomes much more than document preparation.

    The goal is not simply to make a candidate look impressive.

    The goal is to make their relevance obvious.


    There Is Still One Uncomfortable Reality

    Even excellent positioning cannot guarantee a job.

    A candidate can have strong experience, a well-developed strategy, a credible network, thoughtful positioning, and excellent materials and still encounter a difficult hiring market.

    Budgets disappear. Roles are frozen. Hiring priorities change. Internal candidates emerge. Companies delay decisions. Entire sectors can contract.

    The last several years have made this reality increasingly difficult to ignore.

    Career strategy can improve a candidate’s ability to compete. It cannot manufacture employer demand.

    That distinction matters because job seekers are often encouraged to treat every unsuccessful search as evidence that they have done something wrong.

    Sometimes there is something to fix.

    Sometimes there is not.

    The responsible work is to keep testing the positioning, gathering information, refining the strategy, and distinguishing between a messaging problem and a market problem.

    Those are not the same thing.


    Start With the Market

    A strong resume still matters. So does a good LinkedIn profile. So does interview preparation.

    But those tools work best when they are built on a clear understanding of the market they are meant to enter.

    Before rewriting another bullet, ask a better question:

    What are employers in this space actually trying to solve?

    Then build your story from there.

  • What a Good Interview Should Actually Accomplish

    What a Good Interview Should Actually Accomplish

    The purpose is not to perform a familiar set of questions. It is to determine what this candidate could solve, and whether the opportunity makes sense for both sides.

    A candidate joins a video interview. On the interviewer’s screen are an applicant-tracking profile, the submitted résumé, recruiter notes, LinkedIn history, and perhaps an automated summary of the candidate’s background.

    The organization has access to more information than hiring teams could have imagined a generation ago. And yet the conversation begins: “Tell me a little about yourself.”

    The problem is not that this is always a bad opening question. It is that the interviewer frequently has no plan for what should follow. They move through standardized prompts, record fragments of the answers in the hiring platform, and complete an evaluation form after the call. The process is structured, documented, and technologically supported, but may still reveal little that was not available before the interview began.

    A strong interview is not defined by the platform hosting it, the scorecard attached to it, or whether every required question was asked. It is a prepared, responsive inquiry designed to determine whether this candidate can succeed in this role, within this organization, under the conditions that actually exist.

    More importantly, it should determine what this particular person may be able to solve.

    Every position exists because an organization has work that needs to be done, problems that need to be addressed, or opportunities it is not yet equipped to pursue. The job description may define the general territory, but the interview should explore the potential match between the organization’s needs and the candidate’s particular capabilities.

    What has this person encountered before that resembles the conditions here? What do they understand that the organization currently lacks? Which problems could they approach differently? Where might they strengthen the role rather than merely occupy it?

    That makes the interview a process of mutual discovery. The organization is learning what the candidate could contribute, while the candidate is deciding whether the role, leadership, resources, and business conditions would allow that contribution to matter. Both parties arrived because there was enough interest to begin a conversation. The interview should determine whether that interest can become a credible working proposition.


    Ten goals for a useful interview

    1. Define what the organization needs someone to solve

    Before evaluating a candidate, the interviewer must understand why the role exists now. What is not working? What needs to change? Which opportunities are being missed? What must the person accomplish that the organization cannot accomplish (or is not accomplishing) without them?

    Without that clarity, the interview collapses into qualification matching. The hiring team asks whether the candidate has held similar titles, used familiar systems, or completed comparable tasks without determining whether that experience equips them to address the organization’s actual needs. The job description provides boundaries. The business problem provides the reason for the conversation.

    2. Enter with a roadmap, not a script

    The resume, job description, recruiter notes, work samples, and earlier conversations should shape a preliminary view of the candidate before the interview begins. What appears especially relevant? What remains unclear? Where does the candidate’s experience align, and where does that alignment need to be tested?

    Preparation does not mean deciding in advance. It means entering the conversation knowing what evidence is still needed.

    3. Use the resume to find the story behind the record

    A resume documents roles, dates, responsibilities, and selected accomplishments. The interview should uncover the context those facts cannot provide. What was happening inside the organization? What problem was the candidate brought in to solve? What authority and resources did they actually have? Which outcomes belonged to them, and which were the result of a larger team?

    The objective is not to repeat the resume aloud. It is to understand what the resume means.

    4. Follow the answer, not merely the question list

    A prepared interviewer should have a roadmap, but a productive conversation will not always follow it in order. An unexpected comment may reveal more than the next scheduled question.

    Good interviewers listen for what deserves another question. They ask for clarification, test inconsistencies, and pursue details that change their understanding of the candidate. A rigid script can create consistency, but it can also cause the interviewer to miss the most valuable evidence offered during the conversation.

    5. Replace polished claims with specific evidence

    Candidates know they are expected to describe themselves as strategic, collaborative, adaptable, and results-oriented. Asking whether they possess those qualities rarely produces useful information.

    Ask where those qualities became necessary. What decision did they make? What alternatives did they consider? Who disagreed? What changed because of their involvement? The goal is not to collect the correct vocabulary. It is to understand how the candidate operates when the quality being discussed is actually required.

    6. Separate interview fluency from job capability

    Some candidates are exceptionally skilled at interviewing. Others are more compelling when discussing real work than when delivering polished answers to anticipated questions.

    Unless presentation under interview-like conditions is central to the role, conversational polish should not become a substitute for capability. The interviewer must distinguish between someone who presents a persuasive account of competence and someone whose experience demonstrates it.

    7. Examine judgment, not just outcomes

    A successful result does not automatically prove that the decisions behind it were sound. Nor does an unsuccessful result necessarily indicate poor judgment.

    A useful interview explores what the candidate knew at the time, which constraints shaped the decision, what risks they recognized, and what they would do differently now. This shows how the person thinks, adapts, and learns when circumstances are imperfect.

    8. Explore what this particular candidate could make possible

    Candidates who satisfy the same basic requirements are not interchangeable. Each brings a different combination of experience, judgment, relationships, ideas, and ways of approaching the work.

    A strong interview considers more than whether the candidate can perform the role as currently defined. It asks which problems this person may be especially equipped to solve, where they could improve the role, and what capabilities they might introduce that the organization had not originally considered. Sometimes the strongest candidate is not the person who most precisely resembles the previous employee. It is the person who offers the most credible response to what the organization needs next.

    9. Make the operating reality part of the conversation

    Every role operates within conditions that may not appear in the job description: unclear authority, competing stakeholders, limited resources, organizational resistance, inherited problems, or a manager with a particular working style.

    Those conditions should be discussed directly. The candidate’s questions, interpretations, and challenges are evidence too. What do they notice? Which assumptions do they test? What risks do they identify? The organization is not simply deciding whether it wants the candidate; the candidate is deciding whether the organization offers a credible opportunity to do the work.

    10. Leave with evidence that can support a decision

    “Strong candidate,” “good energy,” and “not sure about fit” are reactions, not findings. By the end of the interview, the interviewer should be able to identify what was learned, which examples support the assessment, what remains unresolved, and whether another conversation would produce genuinely new information.

    If several people are involved, each should have a defined area to evaluate and a reason for being there. More interviewers do not automatically produce more knowledge. The process becomes useful only when each conversation contributes distinct evidence to the decision.


    The interview should change what the organization knows

    A good interview does not need to eliminate every uncertainty. It should replace broad assumptions with better evidence, reveal what the candidate could solve, and clarify whether the organization can offer the conditions that person would need to succeed.

    If the hiring team leaves knowing nothing that could not have been learned from the application, the interview did not accomplish its purpose. It was performed, recorded, and completed, but it did not meaningfully advance the decision.

    The measure of a strong interview is not how many questions were asked. It is whether both sides now understand the possibility in front of them more clearly.

    By Melissa Brandt  |  Melissa Brandt & Associates

  • A Five-Interview Process Is Not Evidence of Rigor

    A Five-Interview Process Is Not Evidence of Rigor

    A candidate speaks with the recruiter, the hiring manager, a department leader, a panel of prospective colleagues, and finally an executive who was added late in the process.

    By the fifth conversation, the candidate has explained the same career transition three times, offered the same examples of leadership and problem-solving, and asked increasingly creative versions of the same questions. The interviewers do not appear to know what was discussed in earlier rounds. Several describe the role differently.

    The company may believe it is being thorough.

    The candidate may reasonably conclude that the company does not know how to make a decision.

    More interviews do not automatically produce better evidence

    Some positions legitimately require several conversations. A C-suite executive, board-facing leader, confidential hire, or person entering an unusually complex cross-functional role may need to meet multiple stakeholders. Even then, each conversation should serve a distinct purpose.

    The problem is not the number five itself. It is a process in which five interviews repeatedly evaluate the same qualities because no one has designed a coherent way to reach a decision.

    Additional evidence can improve a hiring decision. Repeated exposure to the same candidate is not necessarily additional evidence.

    If the recruiter, hiring manager, department head, and executive all independently ask the candidate to “walk me through your background,” the organization has not created four layers of rigor. It has recreated the first interview four times.

    What an excessive interview process may reveal

    A prolonged process often points to problems that began before the candidate entered it.

    The role may not have been defined clearly. Interviewers may disagree about which capabilities matter most or even what the person will be expected to accomplish. One leader may view the position as operational while another expects it to drive transformation. Additional interviews are then used to search for agreement that should have existed before recruitment began.

    The process may also reflect unclear decision authority. A hiring manager ostensibly owns the role but cannot make the hire without informal approval from several colleagues. Stakeholders are added because excluding them feels politically risky, not because they have something specific to assess.

    In other cases, decision-makers simply do not trust one another’s judgment. Each person wants individual access to the candidate rather than relying on a structured evaluation completed by someone else.

    More interviews can create the appearance of diligence while allowing the organization to postpone uncertainty. Instead of deciding which evidence is sufficient, it asks for another meeting.

    That is not rigor. It is risk aversion without process discipline.

    The candidate is paying for the indecision

    Every additional round has a cost.

    Candidates may need to rearrange work, invent explanations for repeated absences, coordinate childcare, prepare new materials, or protect the confidentiality of a search from their current employer. They continue investing time and emotional energy without necessarily learning anything new about the opportunity.

    Strong candidates are often participating in other processes. A company that adds stages without warning or leaves long gaps between them may lose the candidate it was trying so carefully to evaluate.

    The experience also communicates something about the organization. When interviewers repeat the same questions, contradict one another, or appear unaware of what has already occurred, candidates are given a preview of how information and authority may function after they are hired.

    A needlessly complicated interview process does not merely inconvenience candidates. It can cause the most discerning ones to withdraw.

    What a disciplined process looks like

    A rigorous interview process does not have to be short, but it should be designed.

    Each stage should have:

    • A defined purpose
    • Specific competencies or evidence to evaluate
    • Interviewers selected for a clear reason
    • Questions that do not unnecessarily duplicate earlier rounds
    • A shared method for recording and comparing observations
    • A decision-maker with actual authority
    • A timeline communicated to candidates in advance

    Multiple stakeholders do not always require multiple appointments. A structured panel can allow several people to participate while reducing repetition and giving everyone access to the same evidence.

    Interviewers should also know what has already been assessed. That does not mean sharing another interviewer’s conclusions before they form their own. It means understanding their assignment. One interviewer might evaluate technical depth, another cross-functional influence, and another management judgment. Their findings can then be considered together.

    The objective is not to see how many people like the candidate. It is to collect enough relevant evidence to determine whether that person can perform the work.

    Candidates are entitled to understand the process

    Candidates can reasonably ask early in the process:

    • How many stages are anticipated?
    • Who will participate?
    • What is each stage intended to evaluate?
    • Who makes the final decision?
    • What is the expected timeline?

    A clear answer suggests that the organization has designed the process deliberately. A vague or continuously changing answer is useful information too.

    Not every position can be evaluated in two conversations, and speed alone does not make a hiring process effective. But complexity should come from the demands of the role—not from internal confusion about the decision.

    If an organization cannot explain what the fifth interview will reveal that the first four did not, it probably does not need a fifth interview.

    By Melissa Brandt  |  Melissa Brandt & Associates