Funny how social skills and agreeability is measured by observing how well a candidate answers a loaded question with a BS answer. That's just the way the world works, we can't get a long with someone who's straight forward and frighteningly honest.
[edit] Also, what will the developer struggle with if they're not able to come up with a convenient response to "why do you want to work for us?".
I dont want to work with employees who dont understand simple questions any more than I want to work with people who cant program.
There might be some code factory situations where it might not matter, but everywhere I worked being able to understand and communicate is an important part of the job. Employees who don't understand a question, dont see it as personal issue, and then resent the counterparty are the worst kind of coworkers.
[edit] >Also, what will the developer struggle with if they're not able to come up with a convenient response to "why do you want to work for us?".
I with this kind of hostile literalism I would worry about having miscommunications along the time "you asked if I could finish the task by tomorrow, not if I will do the task by tomorrow".
Q: "why do you want to work for us?
A: "First off, I am looking for to grow my career and compensation progression and think [Corp] is a place where I can do that. Beyond that, I think this role would be a good fit for both of us because specialize in XYZ relevant skills.
Upon reflection, I wonder if the problem is some people cant tell the difference between BS answering a question that isnt their own.
> And if their skills didn't match the ones you needed, they would have never progressed to the point of getting an interview with you, so there's really nothing new to be learned from that answer.
I think this sentiment is part of the challenge. It isn't just a question of skills, but a personal question of motivation and compatibility, and somehow that is being lost. All I'm seeing is that a potential employee that either doesn't understand my question or thinks their time is too valuable to answer it.
As a bonus, that conversation would probably be more likely to make a desirable job candidate have good feelings about you, and also give them information about what it would be like to work for you. A one-sided interrogation like "why do you want to work here" is less likely to lead to a mutually informative conversation. (Your company is also being evaluated by them; if they're someone you really want, they'll have a choice of working elsewhere. You'll need to sell your company to them.)
To be honest, Im pretty surprised that people see it as so much less relevant or informative. When I interview and have been interviewed, it is usually one of the most important topics.
For some reason, people seem to have a default hostile reaction. If you want a mutually informative conversation, it is a fantastic opening to have exactly that.
Candidates are allowed take an active role in discussion, and those that do are massively rewarded by the hiring process. Failure to engage with questions seems like refusing to meet an interviewer half way, or do literally any of the conversational work to get want they want.
IT is taking a passive conversational position devoid of agency.
I have had hour long conversations learning about how the company operates in the context of what I want staring from this same premise.
Being straight forward and honest is relatively easy. Doing so in a agreeable way to your audience is a lot harder, and usually a highly sought after skill.
The god awful truth is that most people just want money.
Why so many companies can't just offer this and get some dependable, competent employees and be happy with that, I'm not sure, but I know it has something to do with the mentalities of people who become founders or high-up managers.
I didn't mean to imply anything about lying or misleading. Similarly, I don't think it is manipulation to consider your audience and what they are trying to ask.
The best coworkers I've had were honest and straightforward, but could understand and emphasize with their audience too. I think everyone who takes this question literally at face value is missing the second half of that.
I think most people want a nearly endless list of things, of which money is just one of the most important.
For example, most people won't be happy with if you give them money but treat them like shit and over work them with frustrating tasks.
Surely the most significant side effect of any F2F interview is to evaluate social skills. An answer that the interviewer fully expects to be a lie just isn't required.
Anyway... "Why do you want to employ me over other candidates ? "
For people who lack social skills the best way to pass those test is to lie, wich is pretty easy.