---
title: "Real-Time Feedback: My Closing Move in Every Interview"
slug: real-time-feedback-my-closing-move-in-every-interview
url: https://listedarticles.com/articles/real-time-feedback-my-closing-move-in-every-interview
canonical_url: https://mgrebler.substack.com/p/real-time-feedback-my-closing-move
content_type: opinion
language: en
published_at: 2026-06-14T12:00:00.000Z
updated_at: 2026-09-27T09:13:11.155Z
author: "Mark Grebler"
author_url: https://mgrebler.substack.com
authored_by: human
publisher: "Mark Grebler"
publisher_url: https://mgrebler.substack.com
topics: ["Career", "Engineering Leadership", "Opinion", "Productivity"]
license: all-rights-reserved
word_count: 374
reading_minutes: 2
citation: "Mark Grebler, Mark Grebler. \"Real-Time Feedback: My Closing Move in Every Interview.\" 14 Jun 2026. https://mgrebler.substack.com/p/real-time-feedback-my-closing-move (all-rights-reserved)"
# The full text follows. The web page shows an extract and sends readers
# to the source above; quote the citation and link the canonical URL.
---

# Real-Time Feedback: My Closing Move in Every Interview

> Mark Grebler explains ending interviews by giving candid capability feedback on the spot—so candidates can correct misunderstandings and the process becomes two-way.

# Real-Time Feedback: My Closing Move in Every Interview

**Author:** Mark Grebler  
**Published:** June 14, 2026  
**Source:** [Substack](https://mgrebler.substack.com/p/real-time-feedback-my-closing-move)

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.

Over time (and I’ve probably interviewed more than a thousand people), I’ve settled on this as my favourite and most valuable closing move:

> “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).

## The Feedback

The 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.

Constructive examples cover shallow principles behind delivery practices, retention concerns when someone appears over-leveled, and concepts without concrete examples of building a team.

Feedback needs to be about **capabilities** they can act on, not personality traits.

## Responses to the Feedback

### Responses That Correct Misunderstandings

Favourite 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.

### Responses That Try to Correct but Don’t

Sometimes probing after voicing a concern confirms the gap. Treat a confirmed concern as a flag to check against earlier stages, not a verdict. Uncommon.

### Responses That Accept the Feedback

The vast majority gratefully accept feedback — candidates are starved of it.

### Negative Responses

Very rare. One case involved personality-framed feedback (“arrogant”); better to ground concerns in specific behaviors (“when I probed for alternatives, you dismissed them…”).

## In Summary

Giving feedback in the interview makes it two-way, demonstrates transparency, and improves hiring signal by letting candidates correct misunderstandings. Try it.