8 Alternatives to STAR Method in Interviews

Hiring the right candidate can be as overwhelming as finding a needle in a haystack. Where do you start? You've probably heard about the STAR method, but is it the only or the best option for your interviews? Maybe you're looking for something more dynamic, or just different. Let’s explore what the STAR method is and introduce you to eight alternatives that could serve your needs better as an interviewer.

1. What is the STAR Method?

1.1 Definition of STAR Method

The STAR method stands for Situation, Task, Action, and Result. It provides a structured approach to answering behavioural interview questions. When you ask a candidate a question, STAR prompts them to provide a specific example from their past experience.

• Situation: The candidate describes the context within which they performed a task or faced a challenge.

• Task: They explain the actual task they were responsible for in that situation.

• Action: This is where they detail the specific actions they took to address the task.

• Result: Finally, they share the outcomes of their actions, ideally with measurable results.

By encouraging detailed responses, the STAR method helps you understand how a candidate has performed in real-world scenarios. It roots out vague or generic answers, giving you a clearer picture of their capabilities and behaviours.

Pro-tip: Always prepare follow-up questions that dig deeper into each STAR component to verify the details and get a comprehensive understanding of the candidate’s experience.

1.2 How the STAR Method is Used in Interviews

You'll often use the STAR method for behavioural-based interviews, which focus on past behaviours as an indicator of future performance. When formulating questions, you'll frame them to solicit responses that fit the STAR structure. For example, you might ask, "Can you describe a situation where you had to manage a crucial project under a tight deadline?"

Implementing STAR:

1. Prepare your questions: Frame them to elicit STAR responses.

2. Listen for all components: Ensure the candidate addresses the Situation, Task, Action, and Result.

3. Probe if necessary: Ask follow-up questions to fill any gaps in their answers.

As an interviewer, the STAR method helps you systematically evaluate a candidate’s competencies. The responses offer insight into not just what the candidate did, but how and why they did it, providing a comprehensive view of their skills and thought processes.

Pro-tip: When you use STAR questions, observe the level of detail and clarity in each candidate's response. Clear, detailed answers often indicate high self-awareness and experience.

1.3 Advantages of Using the STAR Method

The STAR method offers several advantages for interviewers like you, making it easier to evaluate candidates objectively. Firstly, it promotes consistency in interviews because you ask all candidates the same type of questions. This makes it easier to compare responses directly.

Key advantages:

• Clear structure: Provides a definitive way to capture candidates’ experiences.

• Defensibility: Helps defend hiring decisions based on specific examples tied to job-related competencies.

• Depth of response: Encourages detailed answers rather than one-word or vague responses.

Moreover, STAR can also reveal a lot about a candidate's problem-solving abilities and communication skills. The way a candidate crafts their STAR response can indicate critical thinking, attention to detail, and their ability to stay calm under pressure.

Pro-tip: During evaluation, consider how each candidate’s STAR responses align with the key competencies required for the role. This alignment can be crucial in identifying the best fit for your team.

2. The 8 Alternatives to the STAR Method

2.1 Alternative 1: The CAR Method

As an interviewer, the CAR (Challenge, Action, Result) Method can be a reliable tool for eliciting useful responses from candidates. This model focuses on specific challenges, the actions taken by candidates, and the resulting outcomes. Much like the STAR method, it allows you to probe deeper into the professional experiences of interviewees.

Advantages of the CAR method include:

• Simplicity: Straightforward and easy to remember.

• Flexibility: Adaptable to various industries and job roles.

• Depth: Provides a clear view of candidate’s problem-solving processes.

Use these steps to apply CAR:

1. Challenge: Ask about a specific challenge the candidate encountered.

2. Action: Focus on the steps the candidate took to address the challenge.

3. Result: Determine the end outcome of their actions.

Pro-tip: Use CAR for roles involving frequent problem-solving tasks to verify the candidate’s methodical approach.

2.2 Alternative 2: The SOAR Technique

The SOAR (Situation, Obstacles, Actions, Results) Technique is another effective method for assessing candidates. It’s similar to STAR but adds an extra focus on obstacles, making it especially useful for understanding how interviewees overcome challenges.

Unique benefits of SOAR:

• Obstacle Focus: Emphasises problem-solving capabilities.

• Career Progression: Insight into handling project setbacks.

• Detailed Answers: Encourages more comprehensive responses.

Implement SOAR as follows:

1. Situation: What was the context of the scenario?

2. Obstacles: What obstacles did they face?

3. Actions: What actions did they take to overcome these obstacles?

4. Results: What were the outcomes of these actions?

Pro-tip: Use SOAR to evaluate resilience and perseverance in candidates by identifying previous challenges they’ve overcome.

2.3 Alternative 3: The PARLA Framework

The PARLA (Problem, Action, Result, Learning, Application) Framework goes beyond traditional methods by incorporating learning and application aspects. It’s ideal for roles that require continual learning and adaptability.

Key benefits of PARLA:

• Comprehensive Evaluation: Assesses learning and application post-action.

• Skill Development: Ideal for evaluating growth mindset.

• Detailed Insight: Provides a holistic view of candidate’s capabilities.

Apply PARLA through these questions:

1. Problem: Ask about the problem they addressed.

2. Action: Explore the actions they took.

3. Result: Determine the results achieved.

4. Learning: Inquire what they learned from the experience.

5. Application: Understand how they applied this learning in future scenarios.

Pro-tip: Use PARLA for positions in dynamic fields where continuous learning is crucial.

2.4 Alternative 4: The FAB Approach

FAB (Features, Advantages, Benefits) Approach is primarily used in sales but can be adapted for interviews to understand how candidates perceive the value of their work. This method focuses on the features of their actions, the advantages realised, and the overall benefits delivered.

Advantages of FAB:

• Value-Focused: Emphasises the end value of actions.

• Sales and Marketing Fit: Perfect for evaluating sales/marketing candidates.

• Concrete Outcomes: Clear view of candidate’s impact.

To use FAB:

1. Features: Identify key features of their efforts.

2. Advantages: Determine the advantages provided by these features.

3. Benefits: Ascertain the benefits delivered to the organisation or clients.

Pro-tip: Leverage FAB for roles in sales and marketing to understand how candidates enhance value through their actions.

2.5 Alternative 5: The SAO Strategy

The SAO (Situation, Action, Outcome) Strategy is another straightforward yet detailed method for interviewers. It involves understanding the situation the candidate faced, the actions they took, and the outcomes of these actions.

Strengths of SAO:

• Simplicity and Clarity: Easy to understand and implement.

• Outcome Focus: Strong emphasis on results.

• Versatility: Suitable across various roles and industries.

Implement SAO by asking:

1. Situation: Describe the context or situation they dealt with.

2. Action: What specific actions did they take?

3. Outcome: What were the results of these actions?

Pro-tip: Use SAO for positions where achieving results is critical.

2.6 Alternative 6: The SHARE Model

The SHARE (Situation, Hindrance, Action, Result, Evaluation) Model is particularly useful for gaining insight into a candidate’s evaluation processes. It extends beyond mere action-result to also focus on hindrances and self-evaluation.

Benefits of SHARE:

• Comprehensive Analysis: Includes self-evaluation.

• In-depth Insight: Uncovers deeper layers of challenges faced.

• Reflective Capability: Gauges candidate’s reflection on their actions.

Use SHARE by asking:

1. Situation: Set the context.

2. Hindrance: Identify obstacles faced.

3. Action: Understand actions taken.

4. Result: Determine the outcome of these actions.

5. Evaluation: How do they evaluate the overall experience?

Pro-tip: Apply SHARE for roles requiring critical thinking and self-improvement abilities.

2.7 Alternative 7: The DARE Method

DARE (Describe, Action, Result, Evaluate) Method focuses on descriptive ability, followed by action, result, and evaluation. This format is effective for interviews where descriptive skills and clear evaluations are crucial.

Advantages of DARE:

• Visibility of Thought Process: Understand candidate’s evaluation skill.

• Descriptive Proficiency: Ideal for communication-heavy roles.

• Analytical Insight: Gauges analytical thinking and reflective capabilities.

To implement DARE:

1. Describe: Get the candidate to describe a situation.

2. Action: What actions did they take?

3. Result: What was the outcome?

4. Evaluate: How do they evaluate their performance?

Pro-tip: DARE is suitable for roles in management and communications where clear articulation and evaluation are key.

2.8 Alternative 8: The CAPS Formula

The CAPS (Context, Action, Problem, Solution) Formula is excellent for roles requiring problem-solving abilities. This formula integrates both problems encountered and solutions applied, providing a balanced viewpoint.

Strengths of CAPS:

• Problem-Solution Focus: Assess both problem recognition and solutions.

• Balanced Insight: Comprehensive understanding of actions and outcomes.

• Problem-Solving Ability: Ideal for technical and strategic roles.

Use CAPS by asking:

1. Context: What was the context?

2. Action: What action did they take?

3. Problem: What problem were they addressing?

4. Solution: What solution did they provide?

Pro-tip: Use CAPS for technical roles involving frequent problem-resolution scenarios.

3. Choosing the Right Method for Your Interview

3.1 Factors to Consider

When choosing an interview method, consider the type of role you are hiring for. Technical roles might benefit from methods that allow candidates to demonstrate their problem-solving skills. For instance, the CAR (Context, Action, Result) method enables candidates to clearly illustrate technical challenges they've overcome. Evaluate if the method aligns with the competencies and behaviours specific to the role.

Another crucial factor is the skills you're assessing. Different methods suit different skills. The SAO (Situation, Action, Outcome) strategy, for example, is great for assessing leadership and teamwork skills because it emphasises actions and outcomes, giving you insights into how the candidate navigates team dynamics. Make sure the chosen method allows you to gauge specific skills effectively.

Assess the interview format as well. Some methods work better in panel interviews, while others are suited for one-on-one settings. The CAPS (Context, Action, Problem, Solution) formula, for instance, might be time-consuming in a panel format but works well in one-on-one settings, providing a comprehensive picture of problem-solving abilities. Adapt the method to the interview structure you prefer.

Pro-tip: Consider running a pilot interview with each method to evaluate its effectiveness before implementing it widely.

3.2 Pros and Cons of Each Method

Choosing the right interview method involves weighing pros and cons of each option. CAR is generally easy to understand and apply, offering clear insights into candidate competencies. However, it may lack depth in some areas. FAB (Features, Advantages, Benefits) emphasises the practical outcomes of a candidate's actions but may be too simplistic for complex roles.

The SOAR (Situation, Objective, Actions, Results) technique gives a well-rounded view of a candidate’s strategic thinking and planning abilities, but it could be lengthy and hard to manage in short interviews. Conversely, the PARLA (Problem, Action, Result, Learning, Application) framework excels in continuously improving learning but might overwhelm candidates unfamiliar with reflective thinking.

Methods like DARE (Describe, Action, Results, Evaluate) allow for detailed behavioural insights but may not be efficient in assessing technical skills. On the other hand, SHARE (Situation, Hindrances, Actions, Results, Evaluation) offers a structured yet comprehensive approach, but it can become cumbersome if not carefully managed.

Choosing the right interview method is crucial for gathering accurate, relevant insights into your candidates' abilities. Selecting a method that aligns with the role and skills required can significantly improve your hiring decisions.