In a hiring market crowded with polished résumés and rehearsed answers, effort has become the real differentiator.That is the blunt message from Scott Tannen, founder and CEO of Boll & Branch, who has personally interviewed and hired hundreds across roles ranging from interns to C-suite executives. Speaking to CNBC, Tannen says he always begins interviews with the same, deceptively simple question: What do you know about Boll & Branch?It is not a warm-up. It is a filter. “I think when people have not done their homework, that is the biggest red flag,” Tannen has been quoted saying in the CNBC interview. “You don’t have to know every answer, but you have to have done your homework,” he added. Tannen does not expect encyclopaedic recall, but he does expect signs of effort — time spent reading, understanding the business, and thinking about how the company works. “If they can’t at least give me back what’s on our Wikipedia page, we probably are not starting off on the best foot,” he shared. What Tannen is really diagnosing here is not ignorance, but indifference. In an era when candidates have unlimited access to information, failing to learn even the basics about a prospective employer signals something deeper: A casual attitude towards opportunity. The question works because it collapses pretence. Confidence, charm and fluency cannot compensate for the absence of preparation. Within minutes, the employer knows whether a candidate has shown up curious, or merely hopeful.And this is where most interview advice quietly falls apart. Candidates obsess over answers — how to explain weaknesses, how to negotiate salary, how to sound passionate — but neglect the far more consequential mistake: Walking into a conversation without context. Employers are not testing memory; they are testing intent. Here are 7 ways you are inadvertently telling employers that you’re not serious.
You describe the company in vague, catch-all language
Saying a company is “into tech,” “does consulting,” or “makes products” is not neutrality, it is a tell. It signals that the candidate has skimmed, not studied. When you cannot articulate what a company actually builds, sells, or stands for—even in broad strokes—you are telling the interviewer that this organisation could have been swapped with ten others. Employers hear that as a lack of intent, not a lack of information.
Your enthusiasm is generic
“I’m excited to learn.” “I’m looking for growth.” “I want to challenge myself.”These lines are not wrong. They are just empty.Tannen’s emphasis on preparation exposes how quickly employers now discount generic enthusiasm. Passion that is not anchored to the specific business, product, or role sounds rehearsed, not sincere. It tells the interviewer you prepared for interviews, not for this interview.Curiosity only counts when it has a direction.
You cannot explain why this role exists
Many candidates can describe what they want to do. Fewer can explain why the role they are applying for exists inside the company.When asked about responsibilities, candidates often repeat the job description or talk about skills they hope to gain. What employers listen for instead is whether the candidate understands the problem the role is meant to solve. A failure to do so quietly signals surface-level preparation.Walking in without that understanding suggests you have not thought seriously about what you are signing up for.
You have no questions, or only safe ones
Lack of questions is not politeness. It is passivity.Equally revealing are questions that sound interchangeable: “What does success look like?” or “What is the culture like?” These are acceptable starting points, but when they are the only questions asked, they reveal a candidate who has not engaged deeply enough to go further.In the CNBC interview, Tannen adds that preparation is not limited to reading up about the company. It also means walking into the interview with questions of your own, along with confidence, enthusiasm for the role and a clear sense of what you hope to achieve by taking it.Tannen’s insistence on questions underscores a shift: Employers now read questions as evidence of preparation. No questions—or default ones—signal that the candidate is waiting to be impressed rather than choosing deliberately.
You talk only about what you want, not what you can offer
Candidates often frame interviews as extraction exercises: What they will learn, how they will grow, where this role might take them. When candidates speak only in terms of personal gain, they appear casual about contribution. Employers are not allergic to ambition. They are wary of asymmetry.Preparation shows up when a candidate has thought about reciprocity.
You rely on confidence to compensate for context
Confidence without context is increasingly easy to spot.Candidates who speak fluently but inaccurately, or confidently but vaguely, trigger the very red flag Tannen describes. In an age of polished communication, confidence alone is no longer proof of readiness. Employers are looking for grounded assurance and confidence that rests on understanding. Charm cannot compensate for not knowing where you are.
You treat the interview like a performance, not a conversation
Perhaps the clearest cue of casualness is when an interview feels scripted. Candidates move mechanically from one answer to the next, rarely responding to the room, the interviewer, or the company’s specifics.In his CNBC interview, Tanne shared the example of an intern who spoke about building her own brand. It stood out precisely because it was conversational, contextual and rooted in curiosity. She was not performing an interview; she was engaging with a business. That difference is immediately apparent to employers.
