What is the salary of a senior developer today? Have salary increases kept pace with the cost of living this year? And why are people who say they plan to stay with their current employers still considering other career opportunities?

These are some of the questions we regularly hear in conversations with company directors, HR leaders and IT professionals. They all point to the same need: making decisions about salaries, hiring and employee retention based on data rather than assumptions.

That is why we research Serbia’s technology market year after year. The latest edition, Serbian Tech Market Report 26/27, also introduces an important new feature: for the first time, research findings are available through an online platform.

What do this year’s data tell us about salaries, job security and IT professionals’ expectations? We have highlighted several key findings that best illustrate the current state of the market.

IT Salaries: How Much Do Junior, Mid-Level and Senior Professionals Earn?

The median monthly net salary for technical roles is:

• €1,250 at junior level,
• €2,000 at mid-level,
• €3,300 at senior level.

The median represents the salary at the exact midpoint of a distribution: half of the recorded salaries fall below it and half above it. Unlike the average, which can be significantly skewed by a few exceptionally high salaries, the median remains anchored to the middle of the distribution. This is why it often provides a more realistic picture of how much people actually earn in a particular role.

But the median is only the starting point. For the same role and seniority level, the difference between the median and the 90th percentile averages 28%.

This means that the salary at the 90th percentile—below which approximately 90% of recorded salaries in that group fall—is, on average, 28% higher than the median. This is why a single figure is not enough to describe the market value of a role.

For employers, this distinction matters. If they base their hiring budgets exclusively on the median, they may find that their offers are not competitive for candidates whose salaries fall within the upper end of the market range.

Differences also exist between roles. In this year’s sample, the median salary for a senior Site Reliability Engineer was 38% higher than the overall median for the senior technical group—the largest gap among the senior technical roles examined.

This does not mean that every SRE earns more than every senior developer. Rather, it illustrates just how much salaries can vary even among professionals at the same seniority level. When comparing salaries, it is therefore just as important to consider the specific role as it is to consider years of experience or seniority.

More Salary Increases, but Rarely in Line with Inflation

Compared with last year, more respondents report that salaries have been increased at their companies. Nevertheless, only 19% of employees say their company has increased salaries in line with inflation.

For employers, this means that a salary increase alone does not necessarily translate into greater employee satisfaction. If earnings do not keep pace with the rising cost of living, employees may feel that, despite receiving a raise, they actually have less money available than before.

That is why it is not just the size of a salary increase that matters, but also how employees perceive its value in relation to their own expenses, responsibilities and the salaries they could earn elsewhere in the market.

A Market Under Cost Pressure

Cost pressures are also reflected in employees’ experiences:

• 53% of employees work at companies that have introduced cost-cutting measures in the past 12 months.
• 39% say their company has experienced more layoffs than usual.

Among employees whose companies show all three signs of pressure—cost-cutting, increased layoffs and slower hiring—57% report a decline in job satisfaction. Where none of these factors is present, that figure drops to 21%.

These findings do not prove that cost-cutting measures directly cause lower job satisfaction, but they do reveal a clear association between business uncertainty and how employees experience their work.

For leaders, this is an important signal. Cost reductions are sometimes necessary, but the way a company explains changes, sets priorities and communicates its plans can be crucial to maintaining employee trust.

More Employees Plan to Stay, but Remain Open to Change

Some 58% of employees see themselves staying with the same company for the next two years, up from 47% last year. This is one of the most significant shifts compared with the previous year.

At first glance, this is good news for employers. However, a greater willingness to stay does not automatically translate into stronger loyalty. During a period of market uncertainty, staying may be a choice driven by security rather than genuine satisfaction with one’s current job.

Another finding supports this interpretation: among employees who plan to stay, one in two would still accept another job offer. Only three in ten employees plan to stay and would turn down an offer from another employer.

For companies, this is an important reminder that a stable headcount is not the same as successful talent retention. People may stay while remaining ready to leave as soon as a sufficiently attractive opportunity arises.

We explore this topic further in our article, Why People in IT Leave Their Jobs.

Employee Benefits: What Is Standard Today, and What Sets Employers Apart?

As many as 92% of employees in our sample report having private health insurance. Once an important selling point for attracting candidates, this benefit has now effectively become a market standard.

This means that simply offering health insurance is becoming less of a differentiator for employers. The quality of coverage, access to services and other elements of the overall benefits package are increasingly what set companies apart.

AI: From a New Tool to Everyday Practice

AI is now part of everyday work: 97% of employees use AI tools themselves, and one in two users say these tools save them four or more hours per week.

Although these figures are based on employees’ own estimates, the results show just how deeply AI is already embedded in their work. This raises a new question for companies: not whether employees use AI, but how they use it, how much it actually helps them, and how the time saved is translated into better results.

What Do These Findings Mean for Leaders?

This year’s results reveal a market where salaries continue to rise, yet employees do not necessarily feel financially better off. More people plan to stay with their current employers, but that does not mean they have stopped considering other opportunities. At the same time, cost pressures and changes in the way people work are creating new demands for companies.

In this environment, decisions about compensation and employee retention cannot easily be made based on a single metric. The median tells you where the middle of the market lies, but it does not tell you whether your company is competitive for the specific roles and people it wants to retain.

Jaka Lounge tip: When setting salaries, do not rely on a single market benchmark. Look at the full salary range for the specific role and seniority level—including the minimum, median, 90th percentile and maximum—and compare it with your employees’ responsibilities, experience and performance.

Pay particular attention to employees whose salaries fall significantly below relevant market benchmarks. They may be more open to changing jobs, even if they say today that they have no plans to leave.

The goal of effective salary benchmarking is not simply to understand what the market pays, but to identify in time where your company may be at risk of losing the people it wants to retain.

Where to Find More Information

The full report contains 11 chapters and a Salary Guide featuring salary ranges for 67 roles across all seniority levels. On the reports.jakalounge.com platform, you can explore a free demo featuring the first five chapters, the Appendix and salary tools for one role. For full access, get in touch with us.

The data comes from Jaka Lounge’s 2026 research on Serbia’s technology market, published in the Serbian Tech Market Report 26/27. Comparisons with 2025 are based on the edition published in October 2025.

The post IT Salaries in Serbia in 2026: What the New Report Reveals appeared first on Jaka Lounge.

Recruitment has its own language.

Some terms are ones we hear every day and no longer stop to think about what they actually mean. Others only become familiar when we take a closer look at recruitment, selection and talent management.

Understanding these terms is useful regardless of whether you work in recruitment, participate in the selection process as a hiring manager or are currently involved in it as a candidate.

That is why we created a recruitment glossary that will serve as a practical guide to terms used in modern recruitment — from how candidates are identified and assessed to the broader context in which companies today plan for and attract talent.

Below, we present a selection of terms used across different stages of the recruitment process. For each term, we provide a short and clear explanation of its meaning and practical application.

Applicants per Hire (ApH) – number of applicants per hire

This metric shows how many candidate applications were needed on average to make one hire. It is calculated by dividing the total number of applications by the number of candidates hired. For example, if 120 candidates applied for a position and three were hired, the ApH is 40.

The number of applications, however, does not by itself indicate how successful the hiring process is. A high number may mean that the employer is highly desirable, so candidates apply even when they do not meet the requirements — sometimes simply because they want to be added to the company’s database. It may also mean that the job ad is not clear enough and attracts a large number of unsuitable applications. On the other hand, a low number may be the result of a well-targeted job ad, but also of overly strict requirements or lower employer attractiveness.

ApH is particularly useful for comparing recruitment channels. If LinkedIn generates 10 applications and one hire, while a local website generates 200 applications and one hire, LinkedIn has proven to be the more efficient channel in that case: it generated more relevant candidates and required less time for selection.

Jaka Lounge advice: If a manager asks you for this metric next time, do not send them just the number — explain the process as well. Managers often come from other professional fields and view recruitment through general metrics, so a number without context can create a misleading picture of your work. Show where the applications come from, how many of them are actually relevant to the position and how much time the selection process requires. Because 200 applications are not necessarily better than 20.

ATS (Applicant Tracking System) 

ATS is software that helps companies manage the entire hiring process in one place — from publishing a job ad and receiving applications to interviews, offers and hiring.

Depending on the system, a job ad can be created directly in the ATS, published on the careers page and job portals, and then shared on LinkedIn and other social networks. All incoming applications are automatically linked to the relevant position.

Instead of having CVs, comments and correspondence spread across different emails, spreadsheets and documents, the ATS stores all candidate information and shows which stage of the process they are in. The recruiter can therefore see how many applications have been received, who has passed the initial selection, who has been invited to an interview, how a candidate was assessed and why a particular decision was made.

The ATS also facilitates communication with candidates, collaboration between recruiters and hiring managers, tracking the source of applications and reporting. However, how useful the data is depends on how consistently the system is used and how well the processes within it are set up. When a candidate submits an application, the ATS processes the CV by identifying and extracting information such as work experience, education, skills, certifications and other criteria relevant to the position. Depending on the system, applications can then be filtered and searched according to keywords and the requirements in the job ad. This means that a CV containing photos, graphics, tables, columns or text that is actually part of an image may be more difficult for the system to read, so important information may remain unrecognized. On the other hand, a clearly structured CV with standard section headings and specifically stated experience and skills that match the position requirements increases the likelihood that the ATS will correctly process the application and select it for recruiter review.

Jaka Lounge advice for recruiters: A recruiter cannot, and should not, remember everything. That is why the ATS keeps a record of what happened during the process. Notes in the system should contain professionally relevant observations, not personal impressions and assumptions. It is appropriate to write: “During the test, the candidate used headphones, although the rules stated that they were not allowed” or “The candidate did not provide concrete examples for the following competencies.” It is not appropriate to conclude without evidence: “The candidate cheated,” nor to include comments about appearance, age, pregnancy, family status, health, disability, religion, nationality, political views or other personal characteristics that are not relevant to the job and must not form the basis for a hiring decision.

A simple rule is useful: write the note as if the candidate might read it one day, but also as if you will need to remember the conversation and the reasons for your assessment six months from now.

Jaka Lounge advice for candidates: Create your CV so that it is clear both to the person reading it and to the system processing it. Use a simple and easy-to-read format, clear section headings and text that can be properly selected and copied. Avoid presenting important information only through images, charts, icons, text boxes, complex tables or multiple columns. Also pay attention to the terms in the job ad that genuinely describe your experience — if you have a required skill, state it clearly using the terminology used in the job ad. Before submitting your CV, you can perform a simple test: try copying its entire text into a plain text editor. If the content becomes mixed up, information is missing or it is difficult to read, there is a risk that the ATS will not process it correctly.

Boolean Search 

Boolean Search is a search method that uses logical symbols such as AND, OR and NOT, as well as quotation marks and parentheses, to precisely combine and limit search criteria. In recruitment, it is used to find candidates in CV databases, on LinkedIn, search engines and other sourcing tools.

Each symbol has its own role: AND narrows the search and requires results to contain all listed terms, OR broadens the search by including any of the listed terms, while NOT excludes unwanted results. Quotation marks are used to search for an exact phrase, while parentheses are used to combine multiple conditions into a more complex query.

In recruitment, Boolean Search is particularly useful when a position has multiple possible titles or when candidates describe the same knowledge and experience differently. For example, a recruiter can search for (“Software Engineer” OR “Software Developer”) AND Python to include candidates with different job titles but relevant technology experience. By adding NOT Manager, they can exclude some unwanted results.

It is important to keep in mind that Boolean Search does not find the “best candidate” on its own. It finds profiles that match the logic defined by the recruiter. If the query is too broad, we will get many irrelevant results; if it is too restrictive, we may exclude strong candidates who describe their experience using different terms. That is why the Boolean string is often adjusted based on the search results.

Jaka Lounge advice: Do not treat Boolean Search as a competition to create the longest possible search string. A good Boolean search starts with the question who exactly do we want to find? and then uses different titles, synonyms and criteria to reach that profile. Especially when searching for rare profiles, it is better to create several smart variations than one huge and overly restrictive query. Boolean Search should be a tool for thinking and testing the market, not just a series of operators copied from one search into another.

Candidate Experience 

Candidate Experience represents the overall experience and perception of a candidate throughout all interactions with a company during the hiring process — from the first contact with a job ad or the company, through application, communication and interviews, to the decision and completion of the process.

Every step the candidate goes through influences Candidate Experience: how easy the application is, whether the information about the position is clear, how long the process takes, whether the candidate knows what is expected of them, how quickly they receive feedback and how the company communicates with them. That is why a good experience does not mean only polite communication during an interview, but consistent and professional treatment throughout the entire process.

Candidate Experience is also important when a candidate does not get the job. The way the company communicates the decision, provides feedback and closes the process affects how the candidate perceives the company and whether they will consider it again as an employer in the future. Candidate experience can also influence employer brand and the candidate’s willingness to recommend the company to others.

It is important to distinguish Candidate Experience from Employer Branding. Candidate Experience is what the candidate experiences through a specific process and interactions with the company, while Employer Brand represents the broader picture and perception of the company as an employer. A good candidate experience can contribute to building a positive employer brand, but it cannot compensate for a mismatch between what the company communicates and what it actually provides.

Jaka Lounge advice: Candidate Experience should be viewed as part of the recruitment process itself, not as something to be fixed when there is time left. The simplest test is for a company to go through its own recruitment process as a candidate: open the job ad, complete the application, check how clear the next steps are and measure how long it takes to receive a response at each stage. If a candidate has to send three emails to find out the status of the process or does not know for weeks whether they are still being considered, the problem is not their impatience — the process is not well designed. Good Candidate Experience does not mean promising a candidate a job; it means providing a clear, professional and fair process regardless of the final decision.

Cybervetting 

Cybervetting is the process of searching the internet, social media and other publicly available online sources to collect additional information about a candidate that may be considered during recruitment and selection. The literature also uses the terms social media screening or online screening.

In practice, cybervetting can include reviewing professional and social profiles, public posts, comments, photographs or other information available without special access to the candidate’s account. Employers most commonly use it to supplement information from the CV and interview, verify certain claims or attempt to assess professional behavior and potential risks.

The problem is that an online footprint is not necessarily a reliable indicator of how a person will perform at work. Research indicates that assessments of candidates based on social media can be subjective, without standardized criteria, and their connection to actual job performance has not been clearly confirmed. In addition, the review should be connected to a specific purpose and position, and the data collected should be limited to what is necessary for that purpose. Otherwise, cybervetting can raise questions of privacy, discrimination and personal data protection.

Jaka Lounge advice: If cybervetting is used in recruitment, the criteria should be defined in advance and linked to the job. Information that is not relevant to the role should not influence the candidate’s assessment. Particular caution is needed with social media data that may reveal personal circumstances or characteristics that are not related to the candidate’s professional qualifications. The goal is not to find out as much as possible about a candidate, but to assess what is genuinely relevant to the job. Keep in mind that private online behavior should not automatically be considered an indicator of behavior at work — a person may have a completely different lifestyle, interests and way of behaving outside the workplace while still professionally meeting the expectations of their role.

Employee Value Proposition (EVP) 

EVP represents the set of values that a company offers employees in exchange for their work, knowledge and contribution. It includes financial and non-financial elements of employment, such as salary, benefits, development opportunities, ways of working, culture, flexibility, leadership and career development.

EVP answers a simple question: “Why would someone want to work for this company?” That is why it plays an important role in recruitment — it helps a company clearly communicate what a candidate can expect, but also attract people for whom that way of working is genuinely suitable. EVP, however, is not only about what a company wants to communicate. Its value depends on whether the promise matches the actual employee experience.

EVP and employer brand are not the same. EVP represents what a company offers as an employer and what it stands for, while employer brand represents how the company is perceived as an employer by employees, candidates and the labor market. EVP is therefore one of the important elements on which an employer brand is built.

Jaka Lounge advice: Do not reduce EVP to a list of benefits or a few attractive sentences on a careers page. A good EVP should correspond to the actual employee experience. If a company promises flexibility, development and a good culture, but employees do not recognize these things in their everyday work, the problem is not only in communication — it is the mismatch between what the company promises and what it actually provides.

Interview Scorecard 

Interview Scorecard is a predefined framework for assessing candidates during an interview. It contains criteria that are important for a specific position, as well as space for recording evidence and assessing candidates against those criteria. The goal is for all candidates to be assessed based on the same, position-relevant criteria, rather than solely on the general impression after the conversation.

The Scorecard is most often defined before the interview, based on the requirements, responsibilities and key competencies needed for a specific position, which have previously been defined in the job description. The areas that need to be assessed during the interview are then identified from these competencies, such as professional knowledge, specific skills, behaviors or other competencies important for success in the role. Based on this, it is then determined what will be assessed, which questions will be asked and which answers or behaviors represent evidence that the candidate meets a particular criterion. For example, for a Sales Manager position, the criteria may include leadership, negotiation skills, sales team management and strategic thinking. Each interviewer then records the candidate’s assessment and the specific evidence supporting it.

An important advantage of the Interview Scorecard is that it allows feedback from different interviewers to be compared. Instead of one interviewer writing “excellent candidate” and another “I didn’t like them,” both should assess the same criteria and support their assessment with specific information gathered during the interview. This way, the final decision relies more on evidence and less on personal impressions.

Jaka Lounge advice: The Scorecard does not make much sense if it is filled out only at the end of the process, once everyone already knows what the other team members think about the candidate. Each interviewer should record their own assessment based on what they personally heard and saw during the conversation before reading the conclusions of others. More importantly, every assessment should be linked to specific evidence. “Seems like a good fit” is not a criterion. “The candidate provided two concrete examples of how they resolved a conflict within a team and explained their approach” is. However, although Interview Scorecard is a simple and useful format for structured candidate assessment, unfortunately it is rarely used in practice, especially because recruitment processes have become increasingly fast and there is less time for the consistent application of this approach.

Internal Mobility 

Internal Mobility refers to an employee moving to another position, team, function or level within the same organization. It includes promotions, lateral moves, changes of function, rotations and other forms of internal employee movement.

Internal mobility is not the same as a promotion. An employee may move to a higher-level position, but they may also move to a position at the same level in another team or function, or temporarily take on another project in order to develop new knowledge and experience.

For a company, Internal Mobility represents a way to use existing talent to meet new organizational needs, while for employees it allows them to develop their careers without changing employers. It is therefore often linked to employee development, talent retention and future workforce planning.

Jaka Lounge advice: If a company opens a new position, it should not automatically assume that the answer has to be found on the external market. Before publishing a job ad, it is worth checking whether someone from the existing team already has the necessary knowledge or the potential to develop it. For an employee, on the other hand, internal mobility can be an opportunity to change career direction without leaving the company, but only if such opportunities are genuinely available and communicated transparently.

Job Hopping 

Job Hopping  refers to frequent changes of employers, that is, a series of relatively short periods of employment at different companies. There is no single time limit after which someone’s career can be classified as job hopping, as this depends on the industry, type of job and context of the changes.

In recruitment, this term is most commonly used when a recruiter or hiring manager notices several consecutive employer changes within a relatively short period. Frequent changes can be caused by different reasons — for example, promotions, higher salaries, a change in career direction, project work, restructuring or termination — so the changes themselves do not explain the candidate’s motivation.

For this reason, Job Hopping cannot automatically be interpreted as a sign of unreliability or lack of commitment. For candidate assessment, it is more important to understand why the candidate changed employers, what they achieved during those periods and whether their career path makes sense in relation to the position they are applying for.

Jaka Lounge advice: If you see several short engagements on a CV, do not immediately label someone a “job hopper” and end the assessment. Ask what is behind those changes. On the other hand, if you are a candidate with frequent job changes, do not assume that the recruiter will not notice the pattern — prepare a short and concrete explanation for each significant change. Context is often more important than the number of changes.

Skills-Based Hiring 

Skills-Based Hiring is an approach to recruitment in which candidates are assessed primarily based on the skills, knowledge and abilities relevant to a specific position, and less on formal qualifications, previous job titles or the number of years of experience. The focus is on what a candidate can actually do and how well their abilities match the requirements of the job.

In the traditional approach, a degree, previous position or a certain number of years of experience often serve as a substitute for assessing a candidate’s actual abilities. Skills-Based Hiring attempts to replace these indirect indicators with a more concrete assessment — through work assignments, work samples, practical tests, situational questions or other methods through which a candidate can demonstrate what they know and can do.

This approach can expand the candidate pool because it allows people whose abilities were not acquired through a traditional career path to be considered. At the same time, it does not mean that experience or a degree are no longer important — rather, they should not automatically be more important than evidence that a candidate can successfully perform the job.

Jaka Lounge advice: Do not simply remove the requirement “5+ years of experience” from the job ad and declare the process skills-based. If we want to hire based on abilities, we also have to change the way we assess them. The real question is not only “Has the candidate done this before?” but also “How can we reliably determine whether they can actually do this?”

Passive Candidate 

Passive Candidate is a person who is not actively looking for a new job or systematically applying for open positions, but may be interested in considering a suitable opportunity. Unlike an Active Candidate, a passive candidate usually does not come to the company on their own — the recruiter finds and contacts them directly.

Passive candidates are most commonly found through sourcing, that is, through direct searches of candidate databases, LinkedIn, professional networks, referrals and other sources. This means that a candidate can be completely satisfied with their current job and still be open to a conversation if a new opportunity offers something that matters to them — such as more interesting work, a higher level of responsibility, development or different working conditions.

That is why a Passive Candidate is not the same as a candidate who definitely wants to change jobs. Their level of openness can vary greatly — from someone who would seriously consider a specific offer to someone who is simply willing to hear what the company has to offer.

Jaka Lounge advice: With passive candidates, the first contact is not the moment to “sell the position” at any cost. If a person was not looking for a new job, the recruiter needs to explain why this particular opportunity is relevant to them. Good outreach does not begin only with a description of the position, but with the reason why we chose to approach that particular candidate.

Purple Squirrel 

Purple Squirrel is a recruitment term for a candidate who is expected to meet almost all, often highly specific requirements of a position — relevant experience, skills, industry knowledge, seniority, education, location and other criteria. The problem is that such a combination of requirements can be so rare that there are almost no candidates on the market who meet them all.

The term is therefore most commonly used for an unrealistically narrow profile, rather than simply for a candidate who is “excellent.” For example, a company may look for a person who has experience with a very specific technology, knows a particular industry, has already managed a team, speaks several languages, is willing to work from a specific location and fits within a limited budget. Each of these requirements may make sense individually, but their combination can drastically reduce the number of potential candidates.

In practice, Purple Squirrel is often associated with the expression Unicorn Candidate. The terms are used for a very similar concept of an ideal, extremely rare candidate, although “Purple Squirrel” is more often used when the problem is that a specific position has overly precise requirements.

Jaka Lounge advice: When a search takes a long time without enough relevant candidates, first reassess the criteria instead of simply expanding sourcing. Separate must-have from nice-to-have requirements and check which of them actually determine success in the position. A candidate who meets 100% of the criteria is not necessarily a better choice than a candidate who meets the key requirements, has relevant transferable skills and can develop what they lack. Searching for a Purple Squirrel is often not a recruitment problem, but a problem with how the position itself has been defined.

Quality of Hire (QoH) 

Quality of Hire is a metric that assesses how successful a new hire is after the candidate starts working. Unlike metrics such as Time to Hire or Cost per Hire, which measure the speed and cost of the process, Quality of Hire attempts to measure the actual outcome of hiring — how well the new employee fits the role, performs the job and remains with the organization.

There is no universal formula for calculating this metric. Companies most often assess it by combining several indicators, such as employee performance, retention within the company, time needed to reach the expected level of productivity and hiring manager feedback. Which indicators are used depends on the company, the position and the purpose of the measurement.

These data can show whether a particular sourcing channel, selection method or candidate assessment criteria actually lead to more successful hires.

It is also important to understand that Quality of Hire cannot be attributed solely to recruitment. A new employee’s performance is influenced by onboarding, management quality, clarity of responsibilities, organizational context and other factors after hiring. This is why the metric should be viewed as an indicator of the outcome of the entire hiring process, not only the recruiter’s work.

Jaka Lounge advice: Do not measure recruiter success only by how quickly they filled a position or how many candidates they brought to interviews. The real question is what happened after the hire. If a new employee leaves the company quickly or does not achieve the expected performance, it is necessary to go back a step and examine where the process failed — in defining the position, sourcing, candidate assessment, expectations or perhaps after the hire itself. Quality of Hire is most valuable when it is not used to “grade” recruiters, but to learn what actually works in the hiring process.

Recruiting Funnel

Recruiting Funnel  is a model that shows how candidates move through different stages of the hiring process — from initial contact or application to final selection, offer and employment. The number of candidates naturally decreases throughout the process because some of them do not continue to the next stage.

Typical stages may include:

Recruitment
Application
Pre-selection based on CV
Pre-screening
Interview
Assessment
Testing
Second interview
Offer
Employment

The specific structure of the funnel depends on the company, type of position and how the recruitment process is organized, so some stages may be combined, omitted or added. It is important that each stage has clearly defined criteria for progression and an expected outcome so that it is possible to track how many candidates move from one stage to another and where the greatest reduction in their number occurs.

Tracking the funnel allows a company to see how many candidates enter each stage and what the conversion rate is between them. A decrease in the number of candidates is not a problem in itself — it is important to understand whether it corresponds to the expected process for the specific position. For example, if out of 100 applications, 20 candidates are relevant for pre-screening, five pass the final assessment and one accepts the offer, the funnel shows how candidates are filtered through the process. Only when these ratios are compared with expectations and previous results can it be assessed whether there is a problem or whether the process is simply appropriate for that position.

Jaka Lounge advice: Do not evaluate a recruiting funnel only by how much the number of candidates decreases. A funnel for one specific position can be completely different from a funnel for mass hiring, and there is no “ideal” number of candidates at every stage. What matters is understanding what happens between stages: how many candidates are genuinely relevant, how many withdraw, how many are eliminated and how many ultimately meet the needs of the position. A good funnel is not the one with the largest number of candidates, but the one that leads a sufficient number of relevant candidates to a quality hire.

Screening Matrix 

Screening Matrix is a structured tool used to assess and compare candidates according to predefined criteria relevant to a specific position. It is most commonly organized as a table in which the criteria for each candidate include relevant experience, key skills, education, certifications or other position requirements.

The criteria are defined before the candidate review begins and can be divided into must-have and nice-to-have requirements. Depending on the approach, criteria can be marked as met or not met, assessed on a scale or given different weights. This ensures that all candidates are assessed according to the same framework, rather than changing the criteria depending on the specific CV.

Screening Matrix is particularly useful when there is a larger number of candidates or when several people are involved in the process. It allows us to clearly see which candidates meet the basic requirements, where there are differences between them and based on which criteria someone moved to the next stage of the process. It can also serve as documentation explaining why a particular decision was made.

It is important that the criteria are job-related, meaning directly connected to the requirements of the job. If the matrix contains too many criteria or criteria that are not connected to the actual needs of the position, it can create only the appearance of objectivity instead of improving the assessment process.

Jaka Lounge advice: The Screening Matrix should be created before you start reviewing candidates, not after you have already formed an opinion about them. Before the screening begins, agree on what is truly necessary for success in the position, what is an advantage and what is not relevant at all. If you start changing the criteria after finding an interesting candidate in order to make them “fit,” the matrix no longer serves its purpose. Good screening is not about finding a candidate who perfectly matches every row in the table, but about consistently assessing what is truly important for the job.

Talent Intelligence 

Talent Intelligence represents the collection, connection and analysis of data about the talent market in order for a company to make informed decisions about hiring and workforce planning. It includes data such as the availability and concentration of specific skills, salaries, competitor activity, talent movement and labor market trends.

Unlike simply searching for candidates, Talent Intelligence is used to first understand what is realistically available in the market. For example, before opening a position, a company can analyze how many relevant candidates exist in a particular location, where these people are, which companies employ similar profiles and what the market salaries are for the required level of experience. Based on this data, it can adjust the location, budget, requirements or sourcing strategy.

Talent Intelligence differs from Talent Mapping and People Analytics. Talent Mapping is most often focused on identifying specific people and companies in a particular market, while Talent Intelligence uses a broader set of data to support strategic decisions. People Analytics primarily focuses on data about existing employees and the internal workforce, while Talent Intelligence largely includes the external market as well.

Jaka Lounge advice: Before we start looking for candidates, we should know what actually exists in the market. If a company wants to hire a highly specific profile and the analysis shows that such candidates are few, that almost all of them are located at a few competing companies or that the planned budget is below the market level, the problem is not that the recruiter “did not search well enough.” Searching can begin only once we understand the market. Talent Intelligence should help us find out such things before we spend time on the search, not only when the recruitment process has already stalled. This is, as they say, work in advance, but in practice very few companies actually carry out this step. If you are a recruiter, it can be useful to occasionally conduct this type of research in order to make your search for rare profiles easier.

Talent Pipeline 

Talent Pipeline represents an organized group of potential candidates who have been identified as relevant for specific positions or groups of positions and with whom the company maintains a relationship so that they can be considered when there is a need.

Unlike a traditional candidate database, a Talent Pipeline is active and focused on future hiring. It can include candidates who have already gone through a certain level of assessment, candidates the recruiter has already spoken with, former candidates who were not selected for a previous position, as well as passive candidates who are not currently ready to make a move but could be relevant in the future.

A Talent Pipeline does not have to be tied to one specific open position. A company can, for example, continuously build a pipeline of senior software developers, sales managers or other profiles it knows it will need. When a position opens, the recruiter does not start the search from scratch, but already has a group of people who match a certain profile and with whom there has been previous communication.

It is important to distinguish Talent Pipeline from Talent Pool. Talent Pool is a broader group of potentially relevant talent, while Talent Pipeline represents a narrower and more actively managed group of candidates connected to a specific future hiring need. In practice, however, these two terms are often used interchangeably, so their exact meaning can depend on the company and its recruitment process.

Jaka Lounge advice: Talent Pipeline has no value simply because it contains a large number of names. If we do not know who the people in the pipeline are, which positions they could be relevant for, when we last communicated with them and whether they are still interested, we actually have a database rather than a functional pipeline. A good pipeline needs to be regularly updated and maintained — especially when it comes to passive candidates. The goal is not for a company to have as many contacts as possible, but to already have a group of relevant people with whom a relationship has been built when an important position opens. This takes time, which recruiters have less and less of these days, so in practice it often happens that this becomes a passive database that is activated when a new selection begins. Only in organizations that actively hire and have dedicated recruiters for specific areas does such a pipeline function properly. In most other companies, where recruiters recruit for a broader range of positions, there is not enough time to maintain contact with passive and potential candidates.

Time to Hire / Time to Fill – time required to fill a position

Time to Hire and Time to Fill are metrics used to track the time required to fill a position, that is, for a candidate to go through the recruitment process until accepting an offer. In practice, the terms are often used interchangeably, and they answer different questions:

Time to Fill: “How long does it take us to address the business need for a new employee?” That is, how much time has passed from the moment the position was opened until the candidate accepted the offer.

Time to Hire: “Once we find/attract a relevant candidate, how quickly can we move them through the selection process and hire them?” That is, how much time has passed from the moment the candidate entered the selection process until they accepted the offer.

Regardless of the term, the key is for the company to clearly define when measurement begins and when it ends and to apply the same methodology consistently. The duration of the process is influenced by candidate availability in the market, position complexity, sourcing, screening, the number of selection stages, interviewer availability, decision-making speed and the time required to agree on the offer.

These metrics can show where the process is unnecessarily slowing down and help the company plan future hiring needs more realistically. If a particular profile takes an average of 60 days to fill, the recruitment process should start early enough rather than only when the need becomes urgent. This is particularly important in recruitment outsourcing, where billing to the client may be directly linked to successfully filling certain positions. In such a model, every day until a position is filled can have a direct business and financial impact, which is why Time to Fill is closely monitored.

Jaka Lounge advice: Do not treat hiring time as a number that must be reduced at all costs. Faster is not necessarily better if the assessment of candidates is shortened, important stages are skipped or a decision is made without enough information. It is much more useful to analyze where time is being lost and why — whether the problem lies in the market, the requirements of the position or the process itself — and then look for ways to eliminate unnecessary waiting without compromising the quality of the hire.

A glossary we will keep expanding

This is only the beginning. Recruitment is constantly changing — new tools, ways of working, engagement models and approaches to selection are emerging, along with new terms.

That is why we will gradually expand this glossary and add terms that become relevant in modern recruitment practice.

Our goal is to gather, in one place, terms that can be useful to everyone involved in the hiring process — whether you are a recruiter, hiring manager, candidate or someone who makes decisions about people in an organization.

If you would like us to add any other terms, write to us at info@jakalounge.com. We are always open to hearing new terms and exchanging impressions.

The post Recruitment Glossary: Terms from Modern Recruitment appeared first on Jaka Lounge.

The post Panel Event – Leading Through Ambiguity appeared first on Jaka Lounge.

Today, few people still believe that simply “transferring knowledge” is enough for real learning to happen. In practice, we have long known that a high-quality training experience involves participant engagement, discussion, exercises, and the exchange of experiences. Active learning is no longer a novelty – it has become the standard.

Despite this, the gap between trainings and lectures that truly influence how people think and work, and those that merely provide a good experience without long-term impact, remains significant. The reason for this is usually not the content itself, nor the intention behind it. More often, it lies in how much the learning process is actually grounded in the principles of how people learn – or how much we refer to those principles only declaratively.

Because participating in an activity is not the same as truly learning through it. Understanding an idea in the moment is not the same as being able to apply it later, in a real-life situation.

This distinction becomes clearer when we look at how we are used to learning. In many education systems, the focus is still on memorization, repetition, and reproduction of information. While often criticized, this approach does have its place – without a certain foundation of knowledge, it is difficult to make connections, draw conclusions, and develop deeper understanding.

However, the problem arises when learning stops there. Information that is merely memorized often remains fragile – it fades quickly if it is not used, connected, and given personal meaning. For knowledge to become lasting and applicable, more is required than memorization: it needs to be processed actively – questioned, connected, applied, and tested across different situations.

This is why the way the learning process is designed becomes more important than the content itself. What matters is not what is covered in a training, but what participants actually do with that content while learning. In the space between information and application lies the essence – the place where knowledge is not transferred but constructed.

And it is precisely the understanding of this process that makes the difference between training that remains at the level of a well-delivered lecture and training that truly changes how people work.

What happens in the brain when we learn?

For a long time, learning was viewed as a process in which a person receives information, stores it, and later reproduces it. Today, we know that the reality is far more complex. Research in cognitive psychology and neuroscience shows that the brain is not a passive storage space for information. Learning is an active process in which we connect new ideas with existing knowledge, experiences, and prior conclusions.

This is why simply listening is not enough.

For new information to become lasting knowledge, the brain needs to process it, connect it with what it already knows, and make sense of it. The more we engage with an idea – by asking questions, analysing it, and using it in different situations – the more likely we are to understand it, remember it, and apply it later.

In other words, people do not learn most effectively when they receive information. They learn when they do something with it.

Why do we remember better what we generate ourselves?

One of the most interesting findings in memory research is known as the generation effect. It shows that people remember information much better when they arrive at it through their own thinking, compared to information they simply read or hear.

When a trainer asks a question, presents a problem, or invites participants to come up with a solution, the brain invests additional mental effort. This effort strengthens memory connections and deepens understanding. That is why a well-posed question often has more value than a ready-made answer.

The same principle explains why case studies, group discussions, brainstorming sessions, problem-solving tasks, and practical exercises are so effective. Their purpose is not only to engage participants, but to activate processes that are scientifically proven to support learning.

Why do we remember experiences best?

Think about the last time you truly learned something important. There is a good chance that it was not when you read a definition or looked at a slide.

More likely, it was when you tried something, made a mistake, talked it through with others, made a decision, or experienced a situation that had personal meaning for you.

The brain remembers information much more easily when it is connected to experience and emotion – when it carries personal significance. When we participate in a simulation, resolve a conflict, have a client conversation, or analyse a real business challenge, much more is activated than simple recall. Attention, emotions, decision-making, and prior experience all become part of the process.

That is why most people will remember a well-designed exercise much longer than a presentation they watched for ten minutes. This is also one of the key reasons why experiential methods have become standard in modern corporate learning.

Why are exercises a core part of training?

Once we understand how people learn, it becomes clear that exercises are not a break between theoretical segments.

They are where learning actually happens.

It is only when we try to apply new knowledge that we truly see what we understand, where gaps exist, and which skills need further development. Simulations, role-plays, case studies, and discussions provide a space to experiment, make mistakes, and receive feedback in a safe environment – before facing real and more demanding business situations.

This is especially important when developing skills such as communication, leadership, negotiation, sales, or organization. These skills cannot be developed through listening alone. Just as no one can learn to drive by watching a presentation on traffic rules, business skills cannot be developed without active practice.

From learning to change

The ultimate goal of any training is not for participants to know more, but to do things differently.

Organizations do not invest in employee development so that people can memorize more facts, but because they want better communication, stronger leadership, more effective collaboration, improved problem-solving, and better business results.

The more a training is connected to real challenges participants face, and the more opportunities it provides for active application of knowledge, the more likely it is that learning will transfer into everyday work.

That is why a high-quality training is not the one where participants sit and listen. It is the one where they think, discuss, question, practice, and experiment.

Because people rarely remember what they have only heard – they remember what they have understood, experienced, and turned into their own knowledge.

The post From Knowledge to Change: How People Actually Learn? appeared first on Jaka Lounge.

As the job market matures and competition increases, it is no longer enough to simply have the right experience. How you present that experience becomes equally important. Not just what you did, but how clearly, concisely, and meaningfully you can explain it.

This is where a pattern many people don’t recognize in themselves often appears: over-explaining.

When the need to explain everything blurs the point

Over-explaining typically shows up through long answers, extended introductions, and digressions, meaning adding information that is not directly relevant to the question. Candidates often start with broad context, introduce side projects or details, while the core of the answer comes much later or remains unclear.

It’s important to say this clearly: this has nothing to do with a lack of knowledge or experience. On the contrary, it often happens to people with strong professional backgrounds who want to present their work “properly.” However, in an interview setting, more information does not automatically mean better communication, especially if it is not clearly connected to what is being discussed.

Why over-explaining makes interviews harder

In interviews, candidates are expected to illustrate their experience through concrete examples. The interviewer is trying to understand what you actually did, how you think and make decisions, and how you act in real situations.

In that context, overly long answers:

• make it harder to see the essence of what you did
• break the connection between context, actions, and outcomes
• consume limited interview time
• reduce the clarity of your message

When additional effort is needed to guide the conversation toward key information, understanding the candidate becomes more complex. Candidates who present their experience clearly and with focus gain an advantage not because they know more, but because their roles, decisions, and contributions are easier to understand.

And this leads to a key point: in a process where multiple candidates are being compared, it is often not the one who knows the most who moves forward, but the one whose contribution is the easiest to grasp.

What over-explaining actually signals

The good news is that over-explaining is not a fixed personality trait. It is a communication pattern.

In practice, it most often comes from:

• the need to cover everything so nothing important is missed
• the desire to demonstrate the breadth of experience
• uncertainty about what the interviewer really cares about
• the habit of thinking out loud while speaking
• mild nervousness or interview anxiety, which often leads candidates to “fill the silence” and say more than necessary.

While the intention is often good, the effect is the opposite. Too much information makes it harder to clearly understand what the candidate is trying to demonstrate.

From our experience, the same people who are overly verbose in interviews can be very clear and concise in other situations. This means the pattern can be changed, but it is difficult to “prove” that within the interview itself.

The logic of those making hiring decisions is often simple: if a candidate cannot assess the context of an interview and respond concisely, how will they handle real work situations where they won’t have time to prepare?

This is why preparation and practicing conciseness often make a real difference.

What recruiters (and hiring managers) conclude

When candidates’ answers are not clearly structured, it can be difficult for the interviewer to connect all parts of the story and draw key conclusions. Even when the experience is relevant, it can remain partially hidden behind the way it is presented.

This does not apply only to recruiters, who may sometimes lack technical background, but also to hiring managers. One of our clients described it very directly:

“When I imagine a 1:1 conversation with a candidate who is that verbose, I immediately think about how demanding communication will be and how much energy it will take. At that point, I’d rather choose someone else.”

In situations where multiple candidates are interviewed within a limited time, clarity and focus become even more important. Candidates who drift away from the question or stay too long in secondary details may leave a weaker impression, even if their experience objectively matches the role.

How to overcome over-explaining: the role of preparation

The good news is that over-explaining is not a permanent trait, but a communication pattern that can be improved. The most effective way to do that is through proper preparation.

Preparation does not mean memorizing answers, but thinking through your experience in advance. The STAR method, which we covered in our blog on structured behavioral interviews, can be especially helpful here. Reflecting on specific situations, your role, the decisions you made, and the results you achieved helps keep your answers focused and relevant.

When candidates have clearly defined examples and understand what truly matters within them, they are less likely to drift into unnecessary details. This kind of preparation allows complex experience to be presented in a simple and clear way, without losing its weight.

Another important point is to pay attention to the interviewer. If you notice they want to jump in, ask a question, or interrupt, allow it. An interview is not a monologue. Often, more is achieved through a good dialogue than by trying to say everything at once.

Finally, keep this in mind: if there were time for all your professional stories, an interview wouldn’t last one hour, but several days. That’s why choosing what to say and focusing on what is most relevant in the moment is essential.

Clear and focused communication of your experience is a professional skill. A job interview is not a place to say everything, but an opportunity to say what matters most, clearly, confidently, and understandably.

And honestly, it’s a skill that helps far beyond interviews as well.

The post Do you talk too much in interviews? Here’s how it can reduce your chances of getting the job appeared first on Jaka Lounge.

Date: 26th March
Time: 6pm
Location: Zoom

Software engineers – you’ve got the skills, but you’re not getting to the technical interview?Does this happen to you:

• you don’t pass the initial HR screening
• you never get the chance to show your technical knowledge
• you feel like you would crush the technical part, but you never reach it

In today’s job market, this happens more often than you’d think.
There are many candidates – and fewer opportunities.
Companies choose people who know how to present themselves – and yes, sometimes that can be frustrating.

If you’re an engineer who doesn’t naturally “sell” yourself, if it feels uncomfortable to talk about your achievements, or you simply don’t know how to translate your knowledge into a clear and compelling narrative – this webinar is for you.

At the webinar:
“Beyond Technical Skills: How to Stand Out in Interviews as an Engineer”
we’ll focus on how to:

✔️ clearly explain what you know and what you’ve worked on
✔️ present your projects in a way that shows impact
✔️ answer non‑technical questions that often determine whether you move on
✔️ leave an impression of confidence and competence, even if you’re not an extrovert
✔️ increase your chances of reaching the technical interview

If this sounds useful, join us for a free webinar on Thursday, March 26 at 6 PM.

Sign Up

The post Beyond Technical Skills: How to Stand Out in Interviews as an Engineer appeared first on Jaka Lounge.

Not long ago, many engineers experienced a market where companies competed heavily for talent and interview processes were relatively straightforward. Today, the situation looks different. Hiring has slowed in many sectors, the number of applicants per role has increased, and interview processes have become more demanding and structured. 

Because of that shift, companies are paying closer attention to fundamentals. One phrase that appears repeatedly in job descriptions is “strong understanding of the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) and software engineering best practices.” 

For many candidates, this requirement sounds familiar, yet it is often underestimated. 

With the rise of AI-assisted development tools, writing or improving code has become easier in many cases. Tools can help generate code, refactor existing implementations, and accelerate parts of the development process. What has not become easier is understanding how software moves from idea to production and continues to operate reliably after release. 

In other words, tools can assist with writing code, but they cannot replace an engineer’s understanding of how systems are designed, tested, delivered, and maintained within a real team environment. 

Understanding SDLC is therefore not just theoretical knowledge. It is a signal that a candidate can operate effectively within a structured engineering environment. 

What SDLC knowledge and understanding actually means 

The Software Development Life Cycle describes the structured process through which software moves from idea to production and ongoing maintenance. While specific frameworks may differ between companies, the core stages are usually similar. 

A strong candidate should understand how engineering work progresses through stages such as: 

• Requirements definition– understanding business problems, translating them into technical requirements, and clarifying scope before coding begins
• System and architecture design – choosing appropriate architectures, defining system components, and considering scalability, reliability, and maintainability
• Implementation – writing clean, maintainable code aligned with established engineering standards
• Testing and quality assurance – ensuring the system works as intended through automated tests, integration tests, and validation processes
• Deployment – releasing software safely through CI/CD pipelines and release management practices
• Maintenance and iteration – monitoring systems, fixing defects, and continuously improving the product 

Candidates who understand these phases demonstrate that they can think beyond their own code and consider the lifecycle of the entire system. 

However, the mindset they demonstrate during interviews is just as important. 

Strong candidates can clearly explain how a feature moves from idea to development, release, and monitoring. They describe their involvement across that process and show awareness of how their work fits into the broader delivery cycle. 

Candidates who lack this understanding often struggle to explain what happens after they commit their code or how deployments actually work in their team environment.

Software engineering best practices companies expect 

Alongside SDLC knowledge, employers look for familiarity with practices that ensure engineering quality and collaboration across teams. 

These typically include: 

• Version control workflows such as Git branching strategies
• Code review practices that improve quality and share knowledge across teams
• Automated testing including unit, integration, and end-to-end testing
• CI/CD pipelines that automate build, test, and deployment processes
• Documentation and knowledge sharing to ensure systems remain maintainable
• Observability and monitoring to detect issues in production environments 

These practices exist for one reason: large-scale systems require discipline. Companies want engineers who understand why these practices exist, not just how to execute individual tasks. 

Strong candidates usually describe their involvement in refinement, planning, and design rather than simply “picking up tickets.” They explain how they collaborate with the team to shape solutions and maintain delivery quality. 

Weaker candidates tend to describe work in isolation. Their explanations often sound like “I just code my part” or “QA handles testing.” 

Strong candidates can also explain how they keep code maintainable and testable. They talk about code structure, naming conventions, testing strategies, and the role of code reviews in maintaining quality. 

Less prepared candidates often struggle to describe how they estimate work, plan implementation, or deal with uncertainty in requirements.

How interviewers actually test SDLC understanding

Interviewers rarely assess SDLC knowledge through theoretical questions. Instead, they explore it through practical, scenario-based discussions. 

For example, they may ask questions such as: 

• How do you approach breaking down a new feature before implementation?
• What testing strategy would you use for this component?
• How would you handle a failed deployment?
• How do you ensure code quality within a team? 

Candidates who focus only on coding solutions often struggle with these questions. Strong candidates demonstrate awareness of the broader engineering process and the collaboration required to deliver software reliably. 

Many of these topics are explored through situational questions, where candidates are expected to describe real experiences. These questions are often best answered using the STAR method (Situation, Task, Action, Result). 

This means preparation matters. 

The days of simply “going to an interview and showing what you know” are largely behind us. Today, candidates are expected to demonstrate concrete examples of how they applied their knowledge in real situations. 

Without preparation, even experienced engineers may struggle to recall strong examples during the interview. 

What candidates should prepare 

If you are preparing for software engineering interviews today, it is worth revisiting these fundamentals. 

Practical preparation may include: 

• Reflecting on how your previous projects followed the SDLC stages
• Understanding the engineering practices used by modern teams
• Being able to explain your role within a larger delivery process
• Demonstrating awareness of quality, testing, and deployment considerations 

Even experienced engineers sometimes realize that they have worked within these processes for years but have never explicitly articulated them. 

It is also useful to reflect on how you typically describe your work. 

If you recognize patterns such as: 

• Using detached phrasing like “PM gives me tasks” or “someone else deploys it”
• Dismissing process discussions (“I don’t care about Jira”, “DevOps handles that”)
• Not mentioning testing, code review, documentation, or CI/CD when describing delivery
• Blaming process gaps instead of explaining how issues are raised or resolved 

this may indicate that your understanding of the broader engineering process needs strengthening. 

By contrast, strong candidates naturally describe practices such as: 

• Maintaining code quality through structure, naming conventions, reviews, and testing
• Using CI/CD pipelines and validation environments before releases
• Raising risks or blockers early and ensuring transparency within the team
• Connecting technical decisions with delivery outcomes
• Actively giving and receiving feedback through code reviews 

The current hiring environment has placed renewed focus on engineering discipline. Companies are looking for professionals who understand not only how to write code, but how software is built and maintained in complex team environments. 

For candidates, demonstrating a strong understanding of SDLC and engineering best practices is therefore more than a checkbox in a job description. 

It signals that a candidate is ready to contribute to stable, scalable, and well-managed engineering systems from day one.

The post Strong Understanding of SDLC and Software Engineering Best Practices appeared first on Jaka Lounge.

In this webinar series organized by Jaka Lounge, we explore how AI is transforming the way we work, make decisions, design systems, and build products. We focus on the shift in mindset and workflows within engineering, product, and technology teams.

The post AI Engineering Webinar appeared first on Jaka Lounge.

In such a competitive environment, recognizing nuances becomes essential, and one of the most reliable ways to make that fine distinction is the structured behavioral interview. This format allows employers to identify, within a market full of strong candidates, those whose work style, behaviors, and approach truly match the specifics of the role and the organizational culture. As a result, it has become an almost inevitable part of every serious selection process today. 

Structured behavioral interviews make it easier for employers to accurately assess candidates.

What Is a Structured Behavioral Interview?

A structured behavioral interview is based on a simple principle:
the best predictor of future behavior is real, concrete behavior from the past.

 While traditional interviews often involve general questions, behavioral interviews ask about actual experiences. Instead of the vague “How would you react?”, the focus is on “Tell me about a time when you…”. 

What makes this format structured is that: 

• all candidates receive a similar set of questions, 
• the same questions assess the same competencies, 
• evaluation is based on predefined criteria, rather than subjective impressions. 

The result is greater consistency and fairness in the selection process. 

What the Process Looks Like — and How It Differs from a “Classic” Interview 

If you’ve never encountered this type of interview, you may not know the best way to respond to such questions. The essence lies in using the STAR method, which helps candidates structure their answers clearly, concretely, and in an evaluable way.

The STAR methodology (Situation – Task – Action – Result) helps the candidate present a real example from past experience: 

• Situation: the context 
• Task: the role and responsibility 
• Action: what was done specifically 
• Result: the outcome and what was learned 

Compared to traditional interviews that can easily drift into informal conversation, this process is focused, predictable, and uniform. However, it does require preparation — recalling different real‑life work situations and how one responded to them. 

Why Has This Interview Become the Standard? 

Companies around the world — and increasingly in our region — adopt this method because it: 

• increases hiring predictability, 
• reduces risk and subjectivity, 
• enables easier comparison between candidates, 
• reveals true skills and behaviors, 
• provides a fair and transparent process. 

At a time when there are many strong candidates but also more misleading profiles, this method provides a clearer picture and a more accurate selection. 

Clear Methodology That Requires Preparation 

What makes structured behavioral interviews especially effective is the clarity of the methodology and well‑defined expectations. There is little room for improvisation — evaluations are based on real experience, not theoretical opinions.Since questions revolve around real business situations, examples must be:

• concrete, 
• relevant to the competency, 
• clearly explained, 
• directly connected to the question. 

A competency represents a combination of knowledge, skills, behaviors, and ways of thinking that lead to successful performance. It is not measured by what a candidate claims they can do, but by what they have actually done and how they behaved in real situations. 

General answers do not provide enough information for evaluation. This is why the method requires candidates to reflect, before the interview, on situations from their professional experience that illustrate key competencies. Preparation does not mean memorizing answers but rather understanding how this structure works and how an example is built through a logical sequence of events. 

This process benefits not only employers but also candidates, helping them articulate their experience more accurately. 

What a Good Answer Looks Like — and What a Bad One Looks Like 

Poorly Structured Answer 

Question: “Tell me about a time when you had to solve a challenge under a tight deadline.” 

 “Well, I always work well under pressure and I often have deadlines. I try to stay organized and finish everything on time.” 

Why is it bad? 

• no concrete situation 
• no task defined 
• no action 
• no result 
• nothing that can be evaluated 

If you choose to give this kind of answer, it is very likely that you won’t move forward to the next stage of the interview. The interviewer won’t have any evidence that you have actually dealt with a problem under a tight deadline, whereas candidates who describe a concrete situation will have a clear advantage. 

Well‑Structured Answer 

Same question. 

“During a project last year, the client moved the delivery deadline three days earlier (Situation). My task was to reorganize the team and ensure we delivered without compromising quality (Task). I analyzed the activities, redistributed responsibilities, introduced short daily stand‑ups, and personally took on the most complex part of the work (Action). The project was delivered on time, the client was extremely satisfied, and the method we used became our standard approach for urgent deadlines (Result).” 

Why is it good? 

• clear, concrete, evaluable 
• shows ownership 
• highlights action and outcome 
• answers exactly what was asked 

Who Benefits Most from This Approach?

This interview format benefits both employers and candidates. Companies gain a more precise insight, while candidates receive a fair opportunity to demonstrate actual experience. As professional practices mature, it’s increasingly clear that concrete examples reflect competencies far better than general statements. 

How to Prepare for a Structured Behavioral Interview 

First, carefully read the job description and identify the competencies required. These are not always presented as simple traits like “problem‑solving” or “working under pressure,” but often embedded within technical or experiential requirements. 

In job postings, competencies are often “hidden” behind descriptions of experience and technical requirements. For example, items such as “proven experience in designing and implementing distributed systems,” “experience balancing modernization of existing systems with the need for stability,” or “ability to influence without authority” do not describe only what someone has done, but how they think, make decisions, and operate in complex situations. That is precisely what a competency represents. 

For instance, a requirement related to balancing modernization and stability contains multiple competencies within it: risk assessment, decision‑making under uncertainty, prioritization, systems thinking, and communication with various stakeholders. A behavioral interview therefore won’t evaluate only whether the candidate has worked on a similar project, but how they approached it, what decisions they made, and what the consequences of those decisions were. 

It is then important to identify one or two concrete situations from your professional experience for each key competency. If the job description, for example, requires stakeholder management and the ability to influence without formal authority, think of a real situation in which you had to align different interests, make a decision, or persuade others to take the direction you believed was right. 

The next step is to break these examples down—mentally or on paper—using the STAR structure: what the situation was, what your task was, which actions you took, and what the result was. This helps ensure that your answer is clear, focused, and relevant for evaluation. 

Finally, it is useful to practice your answers. Not in the sense of memorizing them, but by practicing how you speak about your experience: staying concrete, avoiding general statements, and clearly highlighting your role and contribution. Good preparation increases a candidate’s confidence and significantly improves the quality of their responses. 

Experience shows that candidates who invest more time in preparation achieve better results in interviews. It is no coincidence that Google and other leading companies have adopted this assessment method. More and more organizations rely on structured behavioral interviews because they provide a more realistic picture of how someone actually works. 

The post Structured Behavioral Interview: What It Is and Why It Has Become a Standard in Modern Selection appeared first on Jaka Lounge.

Work models remained most relevant in tech industry and related professions, as this sector was the first to show how flexibility can actually boost productivity. People who work with a laptop and an internet connection — the so-called “knowledge workers” — became the symbol of a new era, one where performance is measured by results, not by hours spent in the office.

What Work Looks Like in Serbia in 2025

On the Serbian tech market in October 2025, the most common work model is still hybrid:

• Hybrid work by personal choice – 34%
• Structured hybrid work – 21%
• Fully remote (global) – 17%
• Remote from Serbia – 10%
• Office-only work – 6%

Within the hybrid model, working three days from the office remains the most common setup.

So, although return-to-office discussions are getting louder, most employees still enjoy at least some level of flexibility.

What Would Happen If Everyone Had to Return to the Office?

When asked “Would a switch to office-only work be a reason for you to leave the company?” — as many as 41% of respondents said yes.

The highest turnover risk is among those currently working fully remotely, especially those with global flexibility.

Hybrid employees show a more moderate stance, while those working remotely within Serbia fall somewhere in between. In other words — the more freedom people have, the higher the risk of losing them if that freedom is taken away.

The Return to Offices: Between Interaction and Control

More and more companies are announcing partial or full returns to the office, often citing better collaboration, focus, and creative energy as their reasons. On the other hand, there’s also a social dimension — the idea that it’s unfair for service workers to commute daily while knowledge workers remain exempt.

In practice, however, market data shows clearly how employees think.

Compared to last year, there’s been a decrease in the number of people who say they would definitely quit if required to return to the office.

We can interpret this in several ways: perhaps due to fewer job opportunities and a general sense of uncertainty, or perhaps because some people genuinely recognise the benefits of office work — social connection, focus, and clearer boundaries between work and personal life.

But the essence remains the same: how people work matters less than how much they are trusted.
It’s not that people want to work less — they just want more trust.

Flexibility is not a whim; it’s a message: “Trust me to do my part, no matter where I work from.”
And that trust is what today separates the companies that keep their people from those that lose them.

Although employee attitudes are gradually changing and more people say they would accept returning to the office, the need for flexibility remains a key condition for satisfaction and retention.

All data presented in this blog comes from the Jaka Lounge IT Market Research, October 2025.

The post People Don’t Want to Work Less — They Just Want More Flexibility appeared first on Jaka Lounge.