Do you generally recommend that candidates go 'above and beyond' in preparing for interviews by, for example, putting together 30-60-90 day plans or a report on the company/product and strengths/weaknesses/opportunities to give the interviewer a glimpse into how they think? In which situations do you recommend this approach or not?

I definitely recommend candidates going above & beyond. Beyond just a glimpse into thought process, it shows proactiveness and hunger for the role, which is what every hiring manager wants to see, especially for hotly contested roles. That said, given it is easy to build these with AI today, it needs to be a very authentic POV, and used strategically in situations where 1/ You are really keen on the role and 2/ You have a good shot at it (say, if you've qualified beyond the first couple of r ...Read More

No. I do not recommend prebuilding a 30/60/90 plan or a speculative SWOT before you have spoken with the company. RevOps work lives on context. When a candidate ships a polished plan without discovery, it reads as confident but misaligned. Think about how real engagements start. You meet the stakeholders, learn the revenue model, map the constraints, and only then propose a path. Interviews are the same. Advice without discovery is not consultative. It is a guess. Use prep time to build informed ...Read More

I’ve been in all four quadrants - I've gone “above and beyond” and both landed the job and been rejected, and I’ve also "played it safe" with mixed results. Each outcome taught me something. The key litmus test to me is understanding seniority and structure - done right, it’s a differentiator; done wrong, it can backfire. Seniority: The more senior the role, the more this is important - even expected. Deep research helps you speak the company’s language more fluently, anticipate challenges and b ...Read More

I prefer to keep questions such as 30-60-90-day plan and SWOT analysis for internal applicants only. In my experience, external candidates lack depth in this type of question, and they will always be in disadvantage against internal candidates who have the benefit of being insiders. For internal candidates, this type of approach can be helpful to learn a few things about them: Have they done proper research and due diligence on the role? What is their real level of interest? Do they understand s ...Read More

I don't have a recommendation for or against this type of detailed preparation, especially if it helps you structure verbal responses that also give a glimpse into how you think, problem solve and can be an asset to the company. But I wouldn't focus on developing unrequested collateral at the expense of having solid verbal responses. I would bring out supporting materials when they support your response to a particular question (ie if asked about what your 30-60-90 day plan would be in the role ...Read More

Short answer: generally, not unless you’re asked. These exercises aren’t bad - they can actually be a useful interview tool in the right situation - but they could also misfire when done unprompted.  A deliverable like a 30/60/90 plan or SWOT analysis is highly specific to a business that you actually have very limited information on throughout the interview process. At that point in the process, you probably only know what’s on the website and has been shared in a handful of conversations.  Whe ...Read More

When it's worth the effort to prepare 30-60-90 day plans: (1) Senior roles or roles with ambiguous scope; (2) When you lack direct experience and want to break into this space; (3) Final rounds with the decision maker, eg a senior executive. The best "above and beyond" isn't always about what you create, it's how deeply you understand their actual business. For e.g. Read their investor letters; Listen to their earnings calls; Try their product --> This will help you understand key business ch ...Read More