Candidates often fail Lovable's "past work" interview by treating it as a standard portfolio presentation. The company provides specific prep materials outlining discussion points. Ignoring these instructions and showing a generic deck is a major red flag, revealing a lack of preparation and attention to detail.

Related Insights

When hiring, top firms like McKinsey value a candidate's ability to articulate a deliberate, logical problem-solving process as much as their past successes. Having a structured method shows you can reliably tackle novel challenges, whereas simply pointing to past wins might suggest luck or context-specific success.

Executives often interview by recounting past achievements, a "rear-view mirror" approach. To win a board seat, candidates must adopt a forward-looking governance mindset. This involves asking thought-provoking strategic questions about the future, demonstrating they can operate as a peer from day one.

Instead of detailing every step of your design process, focus on showcasing the final work. Hiring managers often assume a process exists. Over-explaining it can introduce biases (e.g., you only show qualitative research) or provide reasons for disqualification. Let the work be the hero, not the process.

The length of an interview can be a powerful diagnostic tool. A good, engaged candidate conversation should naturally last about an hour. If it ends in 15 minutes, the candidate is likely disengaged. If it stretches to two hours, they may lack the self-awareness to be concise. Use time as a simple filter for cultural fit.

To simulate interview coaching, feed your written answers to case study questions into an LLM. Prompt it to score you on a specific rubric (structured thinking, user focus, etc.), identify exact weak phrases, explain why, and suggest a better approach for structured, actionable feedback.

Instead of guessing a nominating committee's priorities, ask them directly. A powerful question is, "What was it about my background that made you want to interview me?" Their answer provides a cheat sheet to their key criteria, allowing you to tailor your responses to what they truly value.

For leadership roles, the interview itself is a critical test. If the candidate isn't teaching you something new about their function, it's a red flag. A true leader should bring expertise that elevates your understanding. If you have to teach them, they will consume your time rather than create leverage.

Ditch standard FANG interview questions. Instead, ask candidates to describe a messy but valuable project they shipped. The best candidates will tell an authentic, automatic story with personal anecdotes. Their fluency and detail reveal true experience, whereas hesitation or generic answers expose a lack of depth.

For high-level leadership roles, skip hypothetical case studies. Instead, present candidates with your company's actual, current problems. The worst-case scenario is free, high-quality consulting. The best case is finding someone who can not only devise a solution but also implement it, making the interview process far more valuable.

Ineffective interviews try to catch candidates failing. A better approach models a collaborative rally: see how they handle challenging questions and if they can return the ball effectively. The goal is to simulate real-world problem-solving, not just grill them under pressure.

A "Past Work" Interview Isn't a Portfolio Review; It's a Preparation Test | RiffOn