A Careersy Guide to Reading Between the Lines in Interviews
<aside> <img src="attachment:5dbfce0e-fd72-455f-9824-9a66a180ed16:Careersy_Coaching_icon-midnight-sun_copy.png" alt="attachment:5dbfce0e-fd72-455f-9824-9a66a180ed16:Careersy_Coaching_icon-midnight-sun_copy.png" width="40px" />
Over the past decade, I have watched ambitious professionals prepare meticulously for interviews. They refine their stories. They practise frameworks. They anticipate behavioural questions. Then they make one quiet mistake.
This is where career risk enters. Job descriptions are written to attract strong candidates. Interview processes are structured to present the company clearly and positively. Hiring managers are rarely incentivised to highlight operational friction.
None of this is unethical. It is structural. If you ask broad questions, you will receive broad answers. If you rely on tone, enthusiasm, or brand prestige, you are operating on low signal. Low signal decisions compound over time.
This guide is designed to change how you evaluate. It will help you extract behavioural evidence, not philosophy. It will help you detect operating patterns, not polished narratives. Most importantly, it will reduce the probability of joining the wrong environment. The principle is simple.
Specific questions generate observable behaviour. Observable behaviour reduces career risk.
Quick Access
</aside>
When clients later regret a move, one theme repeats. They were told about a strong culture. They heard about collaboration, ownership, and growth. They rarely asked for examples.
Culture is not defined by adjectives. It is defined by decisions.
The difference between marketing and reality usually appears when something is at stake. Deadlines slip. Revenue drops. Trade-offs emerge.
If you only hear principles, you are evaluating positioning. If you hear stories with context and consequence, you are evaluating behaviour.
Instead of asking:
“What is your culture like?”
Ask:
“Tell me about a recent decision where the team had to make a real trade-off. What did you choose and why?”
Or:
“What is a recent example of feedback the team received that led to a change in how you work?”
A weak answer sounds like this:
“We always prioritise integrity.”
It is not wrong. It is simply untestable.
A stronger answer might be:
“We delayed launching a feature for two months because it conflicted with our data privacy standards.”