The Question Is Not Always What the Interviewer Is Really Asking

Most candidates prepare for interviews by thinking about answers.

What should I say about myself? Which example should I use? How should I explain why I left?

All of that matters. But another interview skill gets much less attention: understanding what the interviewer is actually trying to learn from the question.

Research even has a term for this: Ability to Identify Criteria (ATIC)—the ability to recognize what is actually being assessed in a selection situation. Studies have found that candidates who identify those criteria better tend to perform better in structured interviews and other selection processes (König et al., 2007; Melchers et al., 2009; Kleinmann et al., 2011).

The question is only part of the interview

Imagine an interviewer asks:

“Tell me about a project that failed.”

A candidate may spend several minutes explaining what went wrong. But the interviewer might actually be looking for accountability, judgment, adaptability, or the ability to learn from mistakes.

Or:

“Tell me about a conflict with a colleague.”

The goal may not be to determine who was right. The interviewer could be assessing collaboration, communication, and how you handle disagreement.

This is especially relevant in structured interviews, where questions are often designed around predetermined job-related competencies. Research has consistently shown that greater interview structure can improve reliability and validity (Campion et al., 1997; Levashina et al., 2014).

The important distinction is simple:

There is the question you are asked, and there is the information the interviewer hopes your answer will reveal.

Understanding what is being assessed matters

König et al. (2007) found that candidates who were better at identifying the criteria being assessed also tended to perform better in selection procedures.

Melchers et al. (2009) similarly found that identifying the relevant dimensions was associated with better structured-interview performance. Later research suggested that what matters is not simply guessing what an interviewer wants, but accurately understanding the demands of the situation (Melchers et al., 2012).

There is even evidence that this ability extends beyond interviews. Ingold et al. (2015) found a relationship between identifying situational criteria and supervisor-rated job performance.

So this is not about learning how to manipulate an interview.

It is about reading the situation more accurately.

A practical way to prepare

When preparing for an interview, do not stop at:

“How would I answer this question?”

Add another question:

“What might they be trying to evaluate?”

If they ask why you are leaving, they may also be listening for motivation, judgment, and how you speak about previous employers.

If they ask about a difficult decision, they may want to understand how you evaluate trade-offs and take responsibility.

If they ask about disagreement with a manager, they may be assessing how you challenge, communicate and maintain working relationships.

Then choose an example that demonstrates those qualities rather than simply describing what happened.

This is also why frameworks such as CAR - Challenge, Action, Result - can help. They force you to make your actions and outcomes visible. But structure alone is not enough: a perfectly structured answer can still miss what the interviewer actually needs to understand about you.

Of course, this is not mind-reading. Candidates cannot know exactly what every interviewer is assessing, particularly in less structured interviews. The goal is simply to become better at recognizing the likely purpose behind a question.

How I work with candidates

In my career and interview coaching, preparation is not about memorizing impressive answers.

We identify what the role is likely to require, what the interviewer may need evidence of, where that evidence exists in your career, and how to communicate it clearly.

That includes building relevant CAR examples, preparing for difficult questions, and learning how to adapt when the interview moves somewhere unexpected.

Because sometimes the problem is not giving a bad answer.

It is giving a very good answer to the wrong question.

References

Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1997). A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50(3), 655–702.

Ingold, P. V., Kleinmann, M., König, C. J., & Melchers, K. G. (2015). Why do situational interviews predict job performance? The role of interviewees’ ability to identify criteria. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 387–398.

Kleinmann, M., Ingold, P. V., Lievens, F., Jansen, A., Melchers, K. G., & König, C. J. (2011). A different look at why selection procedures work: The role of candidates’ ability to identify criteria. Organizational Psychology Review, 1(2), 128–146.

König, C. J., Melchers, K. G., Kleinmann, M., Richter, G. M., & Klehe, U.-C. (2007). Candidates’ ability to identify criteria in nontransparent selection procedures: Evidence from an assessment center and a structured interview. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(3), 283–292.

Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2014). The structured employment interview: Narrative and quantitative review of the research literature. Personnel Psychology, 67(1), 241–293.

Melchers, K. G., Bösser, D., Hartstein, T., & Kleinmann, M. (2012). Assessment of situational demands in a selection interview: Reflective style or sensitivity? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(4), 475–485.

Melchers, K. G., Klehe, U.-C., Richter, G. M., Kleinmann, M., König, C. J., & Lievens, F. (2009). “I know what you want to know”: The impact of interviewees’ ability to identify criteria on interview performance and construct-related validity. Human Performance, 22(4), 355–374.