Interview Preparation Worksheet

A 37-year-old senior data analyst at a retail company interviews poorly. Not because she lacks accomplishments — her work record is strong — but because under pressure she defaults to vague summaries instead of specific stories. In two recent final-round interviews she lost to candidates she believes she outperforms in actual capability. She came to coaching to stop underperforming in rooms where it matters. The Interview Preparation Worksheet produces four STAR stories she can retrieve under pressure because they're written down, rehearsed, and loaded with specifics — the structure that prevents blanking.

Frame this as building a retrieval system. 'The problem isn't that you don't have stories. The problem is that under pressure you can't access them. The worksheet builds four stories in a format that's easy to retrieve: Situation, Task, Action, Result. Each story has a specific number in the outcome — not 'improved efficiency' but 'reduced processing time by 40%.' When a question comes at you in a room, you're not generating a story on the spot; you're pulling one you've already built.' The quality filter for the stories: every outcome must have a number. If she can't produce a number for a story, it's not finished.

Watch for her STAR stories to be technically complete but emotionally flat — the Situation and Task sections are vivid but the Action section describes what happened rather than what she decided. 'We ran the analysis and presented the findings' is not an action; 'I pushed back on the initial framing and reran the analysis with a different model because I thought we were answering the wrong question' is. The Action section is where her decision-making, judgment, and initiative should be visible. If it's passive, the story undersells her. Also watch for all four stories to be from the same domain — she may gravitate toward her strongest subject area, leaving her without a story for leadership, collaboration, or navigating ambiguity.

Start with the weakest story. 'Read me the one you're least confident about.' Then: 'What's the number in the outcome? How did you arrive at it?' If the number is vague ('significantly improved'), push for precision: 'If you had to put a percentage on it, what would it be?' Approximations with a rationale are better than hedged vagueness. Then: 'In your Action section — where in this story do I see what you decided, not just what you did?' That question often reveals the rewrite needed. Close with the tough questions section: 'You prepared framing scripts for the hard questions. Read me the one for your gap in employment.' Test whether it lands as confident or defensive.

A 43-year-old director of operations at a manufacturing company is meticulous. He prepares exhaustively for everything. His interview preparation produces polished, rehearsed, comprehensive answers that interviewers describe as 'hard to connect with.' His coach has heard the same feedback from him after two failed executive-level interviews. He doesn't lack preparation; he lacks the ability to use preparation without sounding like a recording. The Interview Preparation Worksheet is used differently for this client — not to build content, but to build a minimal anchor structure that leaves room for the conversation to breathe.

Frame this as building anchors, not scripts. 'You prepare well. The feedback is that it sounds like preparation rather than a conversation. We're going to use the worksheet differently — I want each of your four STAR stories to be the skeleton, not the full answer. Three bullet points per story, not sentences. The goal is a structure you can feel, not a script you can recite.' The tough questions section is also used differently: 'Instead of scripting your answer to hard questions, write the first sentence only — the one that opens the response. Let the rest come in the room.' That instruction constrains his preparation in a productive direction.

Watch for his STAR stories to still be too detailed — if his Action bullet points are three sentences each, the skeleton hasn't been built. Push for compression: the story should fit on an index card, not a page. Also watch for his company research section to be thorough in a way that produces formal answers rather than genuine curiosity. The research notes should include questions he actually has, not questions that signal he did research. The 'prepared questions for the interviewer' section is often where his over-preparation shows most visibly — if all his questions sound like test questions, they'll land as tests.

Start with a live rehearsal, not a review of the document. 'Tell me about a time you improved an operational process — don't look at the worksheet.' Note where he sounds natural versus where he goes to memory. Then: 'That was [observation]. When did you transition from talking to reciting?' That question surfaces the exact moment where he shifts from conversation to performance. Then: 'Looking at the questions you prepared for the interviewer — which one are you genuinely curious about the answer to?' If he can't name one, those questions need to be replaced with ones he actually wants answered.

A 48-year-old former COO left her company eighteen months ago under difficult circumstances — a board decision she disagreed with publicly. She has been consulting informally but has no formal employment to show for the gap. She is now preparing to interview for senior roles and is dreading the gap question. She came to coaching specifically to prepare for interviews she doesn't feel she can pass honestly without sounding defensive. The Interview Preparation Worksheet builds her STAR stories from the consulting period and gives her a clear, non-defensive framework for the gap question.

Frame this as narrative ownership, not narrative damage control. 'The gap question is going to come. The answer that lands best is not a justification — it's a clear, settled account of what happened and what you learned. The worksheet gives you the structure to prepare for it once so you're not improvising in the room.' The STAR stories are most important here: her stories from the consulting period need to be as strong as her corporate stories, because they're the evidence that the gap was productive, not dormant. Also name the tough questions section explicitly: 'The gap question and the 'tell me about why you left' question both need prepared first sentences — not scripts, but a confident opener so you don't start defensive.'

Watch for her STAR stories from the consulting period to be described as informal and therefore minimized — 'it was just a few projects' — when the actual work may be substantive and coachable into strong stories. Push for specificity in each story regardless of whether she had a formal title. Also watch for the gap question framing to be built around what she avoided ('I took time to step back') rather than what she did. The settled account needs to be forward-facing: what she learned, what she built, what she's ready to apply. Watch for over-explanation — the gap question answer should be brief. Longer answers read as defensive; shorter answers read as resolved.

Start with the gap answer. 'Read me your framing script for the gap question.' Then: 'If you were on the other side of the table — does that sound defensive, neutral, or settled?' Let her assess it. Then: 'What's the shortest version of that answer that still tells a complete story?' Compression is a proxy for settledness. Then go to STAR stories: 'Your consulting period stories — read me the strongest one. Where's the number in the outcome?' If she defaults to a corporate story instead, note it: 'You went to a pre-gap story. What story from the last eighteen months could you use instead?'