Author: Mark Grebler
\nPublished: June 14, 2026
\nSource: Substack
As a candidate, I’ve had some interesting (and some stupid) questions come my way. What these have in common isn’t just that they are stupid questions — it’s that they are one-directional. The candidate performs, the interviewer judges, and that judgment never makes it back to the candidate.
\nOver time (and I’ve probably interviewed more than a thousand people), I’ve settled on this as my favourite and most valuable closing move:
\n\n“I’d like to give you some feedback. First, so you can get some feedback on the interview, but also so you have the chance to correct anything that I have misinterpreted. Is that ok with you?”
The ‘is that ok’ isn’t really seeking permission; it’s giving the candidate a few seconds to prepare. From there, I go into depth with feedback (also inviting the other interviewers to do the same).
\nThe feedback is highly opinionated, direct and transparent — both positives and concerns — specific enough that the candidate can take something away. Examples of positive feedback cover architecture walkthroughs, forming teams with psychological safety, and separating interview nerves from topic mastery.
\nConstructive examples cover shallow principles behind delivery practices, retention concerns when someone appears over-leveled, and concepts without concrete examples of building a team.
\nFeedback needs to be about capabilities they can act on, not personality traits.
\nFavourite case: genuine misunderstandings get corrected — e.g. a candidate who hadn’t gone deep on TDD then demonstrates a decade of practice; a “too senior” candidate explains burnout and seeking sustainability. Roughly one interview in five.
\nSometimes probing after voicing a concern confirms the gap. Treat a confirmed concern as a flag to check against earlier stages, not a verdict. Uncommon.
\nThe vast majority gratefully accept feedback — candidates are starved of it.
\nVery rare. One case involved personality-framed feedback (“arrogant”); better to ground concerns in specific behaviors (“when I probed for alternatives, you dismissed them…”).
\nGiving feedback in the interview makes it two-way, demonstrates transparency, and improves hiring signal by letting candidates correct misunderstandings. Try it.
","headings":[{"level":1,"text":"Real-Time Feedback: My Closing Move in Every Interview","id":"real-time-feedback-my-closing-move-in-every-interview"},{"level":2,"text":"The Feedback","id":"the-feedback"},{"level":2,"text":"Responses to the Feedback","id":"responses-to-the-feedback"},{"level":3,"text":"Responses That Correct Misunderstandings","id":"responses-that-correct-misunderstandings"},{"level":3,"text":"Responses That Try to Correct but Don’t","id":"responses-that-try-to-correct-but-don-t"},{"level":3,"text":"Responses That Accept the Feedback","id":"responses-that-accept-the-feedback"},{"level":3,"text":"Negative Responses","id":"negative-responses"},{"level":2,"text":"In Summary","id":"in-summary"}]}}