I have been reading through & watching multiple video's about how to answer these questions effectively, while most of them emphasise on how important it is to clearly communicate the answer in the STAR format , many also mention to keep the answers to a max of 2 -3 minutes.
I have been giving interviews in the past weeks and have realised that if I try to keep the answer within 2-3 minutes I am most probably not able to explain it effectively and on the other hand if I give detailed answers then the interviewer in many cases starts loosing interest & maybe also in some cases my results cannot be quantified into numbers/impact. Looking at your examples above it makes me believe I "should" really explain the situation well even if it takes more time.
What would your suggestion be ? How to I "quantify" the impact or situation for examples where it might not be applicable
I have been reading through & watching multiple video's about how to answer these questions effectively, while most of them emphasise on how important it is to clearly communicate the answer in the STAR format , many also mention to keep the answers to a max of 2 -3 minutes.
I have been giving interviews in the past weeks and have realised that if I try to keep the answer within 2-3 minutes I am most probably not able to explain it effectively and on the other hand if I give detailed answers then the interviewer in many cases starts loosing interest & maybe also in some cases my results cannot be quantified into numbers/impact. Looking at your examples above it makes me believe I "should" really explain the situation well even if it takes more time.
What would your suggestion be ? How to I "quantify" the impact or situation for examples where it might not be applicable