My Thoughts
Why Most Interview Coaching Is Just Expensive Therapy (And What Actually Works)
Related Resources:
Most interview coaching is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, and I'm tired of pretending otherwise.
After nearly two decades in the recruitment and training space across Melbourne, Brisbane, and Perth, I've watched countless professionals throw money at interview coaches who teach them to recite rehearsed answers like parrots. The result? Candidates who sound like they've swallowed a corporate handbook and forgotten how to be human.
Here's the uncomfortable truth: 78% of interview coaching focuses on what to say instead of how to think on your feet. I learned this the hard way after spending $800 on a "premium" coaching package in 2019 that taught me to answer "Where do you see yourself in five years?" with some generic nonsense about "growing within the organisation whilst contributing to strategic objectives." Absolute rubbish.
The real problem isn't that people don't know how to interview. It's that they've been conditioned to believe interviews are performances rather than conversations.
The Authenticity Paradox
Working with hundreds of hiring managers from ASX 200 companies has taught me something most coaches won't tell you: employers can spot rehearsed answers from a kilometre away. Yet the entire interview coaching industry is built on teaching people to rehearse.
Think about it. When was the last time you had a memorable conversation with someone who clearly had pre-planned responses to everything you said? Never, right? Same principle applies in interviews.
I remember coaching a brilliant software engineer who'd been knocked back from six interviews despite having exactly the right technical skills. The feedback was always the same: "Great candidate, but something felt off." Turned out he'd been coached to death by three different services. His answers were perfect. Too perfect.
We spent one session getting him to throw out every rehearsed response and just... talk. Like a normal human being. He got the next job.
What Actually Moves the Needle
Real interview success comes from three things that most coaches completely ignore:
Genuine curiosity about the role. Not fake interest in "company culture" or "growth opportunities" - actual curiosity about the day-to-day work, the challenges, the team dynamics. I've seen candidates get offers purely because they asked better questions than they answered.
Comfort with uncertainty. The best candidates I've placed admit when they don't know something and explain how they'd figure it out. Managing difficult conversations in the workplace starts with being honest about your limitations.
Stories that reveal character. Not the polished STAR method examples that every coaching program teaches, but messy, real stories that show how you think under pressure.
Between you and me, hiring managers in Australia are getting increasingly frustrated with cookie-cutter candidates. A senior executive at a major mining company told me last month that they've started asking completely random questions just to see if candidates can think beyond their scripted responses.
The Sydney Syndrome
There's this weird phenomenon I've noticed, particularly in Sydney's financial district, where people think speaking in business jargon makes them sound more professional. Wrong. It makes you sound like an AI chatbot having an existential crisis.
I worked with a marketing director who'd answer "Tell me about yourself" with: "I'm a results-driven professional with a proven track record of delivering innovative solutions that drive growth and exceed stakeholder expectations." Makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
The same person, when I asked her about her weekend, said: "I spent Saturday morning at the farmers market finding ingredients for my grandmother's bolognese recipe, then taught my neighbour's kid how to skateboard because she was too scared to try alone."
Which version would you rather hire?
The Technical Skills Trap
Here's where I'll probably lose some readers: technical competency is massively overrated in interviews. Obviously you need baseline skills, but most roles require maybe 60% of what's in the job description. The other 40% you'll learn on the job anyway.
What matters more is learning agility and cultural fit. Google figured this out years ago when they discovered their best performers weren't necessarily the ones with the highest test scores. Yet we're still obsessing over whether candidates can recite programming languages or remember obscure industry regulations.
I've placed plenty of people who were technically weaker than other candidates but showed better problem-solving thinking and team dynamics. The technically "perfect" candidates often struggle because they've never learned how to handle office politics or adapt when things don't go according to plan.
The Remote Interview Reality Check
Since 2020, interview dynamics have completely changed, but coaching methods haven't kept up. Most coaches are still preparing people for face-to-face meetings when 73% of first-round interviews now happen over video.
Video interviews require different energy, different body language, different ways of building rapport. You can't rely on a firm handshake and maintaining eye contact when you're staring at a camera lens while trying to look at faces on a screen.
The successful remote candidates I've worked with have learned to treat video interviews like intimate conversations rather than presentations. They speak softer, use more gestures, and create warmth through their voice rather than physical presence.
Plus, there are practical considerations most coaches ignore. Lighting, camera angles, internet stability, background noise management. I've seen brilliant candidates lose opportunities because their video froze during a crucial moment or their dog started barking at the postman.
The Feedback Loop Problem
Most interview coaching operates in a vacuum. Coaches rarely get feedback from actual hiring managers about their clients' performance, so they keep teaching methods that feel good but don't work.
I'm fortunate to work closely with both sides - the candidates I train and the employers who interview them. This gives me real data about what's working and what isn't. Spoiler alert: most of what traditional coaching teaches isn't working.
The feedback I get most often from hiring managers is that candidates seem "over-prepared" and "inauthentic." They're using industry buzzwords incorrectly, forcing examples that don't quite fit the questions, and clearly haven't researched the actual role beyond the job posting.
Real preparation means understanding the company's recent challenges, knowing who you'd be working with, and having thoughtful questions about how success is measured in the role. Not memorising answers to behavioral questions you found on LinkedIn.
What Good Coaching Actually Looks Like
Effective interview coaching should feel more like stress management training than presentation skills development. It's about helping people access their authentic selves under pressure, not creating a professional persona.
The clients I work with spend most of our time practicing thinking out loud, not reciting answers. We work on managing nerves, processing unexpected questions, and staying curious when things get challenging. We practice having genuine conversations about work, not performing monologues about achievements.
I also help them research intelligently. Understanding a company's actual challenges, not just their marketing message. Identifying the real pain points the role is meant to solve. Coming up with thoughtful questions that demonstrate strategic thinking.
Most importantly, we practice failing gracefully. What to do when you don't know an answer, how to recover from a brain fade, how to redirect when a question catches you completely off-guard. These situations happen in every interview, but most coaching completely ignores them.
The Economics of Authenticity
Here's something most people don't consider: authentic interviewing is better for everyone involved. When you present your real self, you're more likely to end up in roles that actually suit you. When employers see who you really are, they make better hiring decisions.
The alternative - teaching people to be someone they're not in interviews - leads to mismatched hires, higher turnover, and workplace misery. I've tracked candidates over several years and the ones who were most authentic in their interviews report higher job satisfaction and stay in roles longer.
From a purely economic perspective, being genuine saves everyone time and money. Companies waste less resources on bad hires, and individuals don't end up in roles that make them miserable.
The Bottom Line
Most interview coaching is solving the wrong problem. Instead of teaching people to be better candidates, we should be teaching them to be better evaluators of opportunities. Instead of perfect answers, we should be developing critical thinking. Instead of hiding weaknesses, we should be honest about growth areas and how we address them.
The best interviews feel like collaborative problem-solving sessions, not interrogations. When both parties are genuinely curious about fit and potential, that's when magic happens.
Stop trying to be the perfect candidate. Start being the right candidate.
Our Favourite Resources: