Stop Interviewing Like You’re Trying to Get Picked
Why former feds need to stop optimizing for approval
How many aspiring former feds approach interviews trying to game the system? All they want is an offer from this prestigious tech company. Get inside, leave USG behind and everything will be amazing forever and ever.
They focus on not saying the wrong thing. They avoid askingquestions that could create friction. They try to come across as reasonable and easy to place.
This method is understandable. You can see it all over the internet in countless “how to get hired by [insert FAANG]” videos and tutorials.
In the short term, this might help you secure a new job with many benefits. However, in the long run, does it truly lead you to your desired destination?
If your only objective is to get an offer, then minimizing friction makes sense. You optimize for likability and defer hard questions until later. The problem is that “later” usually arrives after you’ve already joined.
That’s when you start learning what the job actually entails. How leadership reacts under stress. What breaks first when things go wrong. By then, you’re no longer evaluating from the outside. You’re living with the consequences.
The point is to disqualify, not impress
You can count on every company having problems. No matter how slick they look on the outside. No matter how many people are competing to join. There are fires waiting to be found.
Internal tensions. Violated expectations. Decisions that don’t age well.
But none of these are red flags on their own. The question is how those issues show up and how the company handles them. You can understand this by actively disqualifying every opportunity.
This doesn’t require hostility, even if it feels uncomfortable. You are already being pushed during the interview process. The company is assessing risk on its side. Choosing not to do the same on yours is a decision, even if it doesn’t feel like one.
It also helps to be explicit about yourself. State what you want and don’t want. Be clear about what you’re good at and where you’re still learning. If there’s something the role appears to require that you don’t bring, say that out loud.
Why this makes former feds nervous
This approach feels risky because it runs counter to how most people are taught to interview. You’re introducing the possibility that the conversation gets uncomfortable. Maybe they won’t like you. And if they don’t like you, how could you ever get hired.
That discomfort is useful because you’re not in a popularity contest. You’re optimizing for career growth. Mr. Nice Guy isn’t a job title.
If your interviewers can’t handle reasonable pressure during these discussions, it’s unlikely they’ll handle pressure well once you’re inside. Interviews are a low-stakes environment compared to unhappy customers or internal conflict. Those situations can lead to bankruptcy and layoffs.
The worst-case outcome of being deliberate in an interview loop is that you don’t get an offer for a role that wouldn’t have been a good fit anyway. That’s a pretty good trade.
You want to observe is how people react when the conversation isn’t fully scripted. After all, they’re using a questioning approach on you. There’s no reason the evaluation should be one way.
Avoiding these questions defers risk.
You accept the role. You onboard. Over time, patterns emerge. Patterns you could have detected before. At that point, you’re already invested. Walking away feels costly, even if staying is worse.
Most of the disappointment people face in their post-USG roles isn’t about pay or job title. It’s about realizing too late how the organization truly works.
They often end up job-hopping, seeking slightly higher pay and titles with each move. Yet growth doesn't compound this way.
What you’re seeking to confirm
You’re not looking for a company without problems. That doesn’t exist. You’re trying to understand which problems you’re willing to live with and whether the team is honest about them.
Can they name their own failure modes?
Do they take responsibility when things go sideways?
Do they adapt, or do they paper over issues and move on?
Those answers matter far more than any polished narrative about growth or culture. Being deliberate this way will cost you some opportunities. That’s expected. It will also reduce the number of unpleasant surprises waiting for you on the other side of an offer.
The goal isn’t to win the interview. The goal is to make better decisions with imperfect information and avoid learning the hardest lessons only after you’ve already joined.
That’s what a deliberate search is actually about.
A deliberate search increases your odds of hearing “no.”
That’s the cost of not lying to yourself. The mistake most aspiring former feds make isn’t rejection. It’s letting rejection knock them off course.
This free guide on recovering from rejection gets you back to work without overcorrecting or chasing the wrong opportunities. If you’re going to interview this way, it’s worth having.
