It's often asked during placement or job offering sessions at college.What are the responses that recruiter are looking for? ( For recruiters what's the best response you got? )
Remember, you don't have to answer the question as posed. An interview is a ritual. The information being exchanged overtly is a small tip of the iceberg; most of the exchange is covert. You can choose to follow the ritual as prescribed by the interviewee/cultural context, or you can occasionally choose to invent your own steps to create the right kind of tension.
This specific question implies that there is a power imbalance between you and the recruiter. Implying such a thing is slightly rude (even if the power imbalance is there, the social convention is to ignore it). So, how do you want to handle someone being slightly rude?
You could play the game on their terms, and just list your skills/characteristics. Of course the recruiter already knows them, so the signal you're sending is obedience in the face of slight rudeness.
You could be a little more forceful and (politely) say something like this: "before we talk about that I'd like to better understand which problems you need me to see if there is a fit between my skills and the needs of your organization."
You could be even more forceful and respond to slight etiquette transgression with a follow up transgression. For example, "I don't quite think this is the right framing, I'd like to first understand why I should work for you."
It's just a game, a dance. Don't think about it literally and play with the steps.
“If you don’t know that already, let’s end this chat now” is my go-to.
Companies and recruiters should know the qualities and capabilities of the person on the other side of the table, gleaned from background material. If they don’t, everyone’s time is being wasted, and somewhere, a puppy gets a slap
That's a pretty bad answer. Might as well just get up and leave if a question like that offends you.
If someone answered that to me it would tell me a lot of things. You don't want to deal with non-techies, you don't want to deal with business requirements or company objectives, you probably don't work well with others, especially if they aren't critical to achieving your tasks.
Ultimately, it is a small-minded approach. If you are working at a startup you probably need to have some business-sense to fill in all the gaps, and if you work at a mid-size to large corp. you are going to be stuck in the basement and someone will need to be the filter to keep you productive at all. Some people work like this and that's all they want to do, but it's self-limiting. Most companies will hire someone more aware of themselves and their role within the company.
But to answer the original question, a good answer would probably be an honest one that is clearly stated. Something like "I feel this is an ideal opportunity for me because the responsibilities of the role are challenging but not overwhelming. I am excited to work with [tech stack] and I'm impressed by [proprietary]. Your team seems knowledgeable and I look forward to learning from them just as much as I can contribute."
A question like that kind of does offend me, hence the curt response to it. If the interviewer needed to rely on such an obtuse question, then I’d surmise that they may not be familiar with the interviewee, which could be construed as disrespectful.
Your example of a good answer is great, and is delivered as if the original question was better worded.
I guess I’m rallying against lazy interviewers who ask “why should I hire you”.. :) it was a theoretical by the OP, and I need to relax.
Another option is "Because the rest of your candidate pool won't generate the value that I will and it's a business risk to allow a competitor to hire me."
I wouldn't use this answer fresh out of college though. Instead I might go with "Because I'm more capable than my graduating peers for X, Y & Z. I'll give you better bang-for-buck over time than other new grads and mid-level candidates in your pipeline and you don't have to pay anyone a recruiter fee."
Go for the throat. Also nobody gets this level of confidence/honesty/awareness in response to these questions, so at the very least you will stick out.
Sometimes these questions are simply conversational. Conversational questions are not to judge ability but to gauge personality.
Be careful when "going for the throat" as you could come across the wrong way. We almost turned down one engineer because he seemed insecure and hot tempered, but the reality was that he was just anxious about the interview and having his credentials questioned. He turned out to be a mature, nice guy.
Thanks. People just don't get it though, in general. This is the only reason anyone gets hired, period.
If you can simply demonstrate that you understand how to provide the business with value then you're miles ahead of 99% of other candidates.
If anyone doubts this, go ask people who do sales how they answer this question. Great sales people in interviewes will already have a calculated dollar amount in new revenue that they're going to bring to the business.
My whole resume is presented as projects I've done that generated real value for the business. My interview and offer rate is above 50%. It's not rocket science.
Handling hard, inane, stupid questions (from your perspective) is a part of life. If you can learn to do it with grace and insight you are off to a great start. There are reasons people may be asking these questions. Why assume that the reasons are so obvious? Take a moment and try to answer this question in a positive way without hostility or hubris. Don't take the bait and don't assume that what everybody only wants is your intellect. Most companies want to avoid assholes as much as they want to select the best.
It was a take on mutual respect really, the question itself irks me, and I’d never level it to a prospective employee.
I would, however, try to obtain the same info using less jarring questions; possibly asking why the employee chose _us_ to decide to make their next career step, what inspires them to do this work, things like that.
The technical tests being given to people with experience was long ago the initial shot in adversarial hiring. Tech hiring gets adversarial but it may be difficult to know before you take an interview with someone.
The original question is already a red flag. Now we're just taking jabs at each other. Especially if this is an interview after I've given you a technical test which probably represents the work better than any answer I could give to the question.
It's a play on an English idiom. The standard idiom is 'if you do x then a kitten dies' (where x is something you want the person to avoid doing) - the idea is by linking it to the death of a kitten, you discourage the behaviour.
I actually got asked this once, right out of college, by a consulting-focused subsidiary of a certain publicly traded company that dealt with open source operating systems that shall go unnamed. IIRC I said something about being smart and well motivated, and being excited about the projects they were talking about... I didn't get an offer.
Ultimately this is a "Rorschach test" question. Because it's completely and entirely open ended, it isn't measuring anything other than the interviewee's ability to say what the interviewer wants to hear. An interviewer that asks this question is probably not that good of an interviewer, because, with very few exceptions, being very good at fast talking isn't a skill needed to do the job.
If you're asked this and willing to forgive the company for giving you an interviewer that would ask this, the other answers have good suggestions.
I'm hearing two common yet contradictory themes here. One is that it requires the interviewee to think of an answer on the spot. The other is that the interviewer should already know the answer, from reading your background material.
But there's always more material that I can learn ahead of time about your company than you can learn about me as an individual. If the interviewer should know the answer already, then the interviewee should know an answer, too.
I will admit that it's probably not a good question for medium/large companies, where there's a specific role to fill, but for small companies I kind of like it. There's 10 different things we need to hire for, and you've got 100 different skills, so which ones do you have that align with our needs, and which ones do you want to apply here? You can't fit everything on a resume.
I confess I've asked this once myself, at the very start of an interview. I was exhausted from interviewing 10 other candidates, and this guy's resume wasn't very impressive, and I just wanted the guy to say something that would make me feel it wasn't going to be a waste of time. (Unfortunately, he was very junior, like "just learned to code last month", and his answer only reinforced that. I'd have loved to have hired him, but we really weren't in a position to hire junior developers yet.) It wasn't my best interview question, but it definitely wasn't my worst, either.
The trouble with simply shooting this down as a bad interview question is that nobody has ever been able to tell me what a universally good interview question is. This one is open-ended and gets them talking, at least.
I agree that the interviewee should know a answer. I don't like the spite/table flip answers suggested elsewhere for sure - I expect a prospective employee to be cooperative and marginally helpful no matter what.
However, speaking as somebody that has been asked this question, and someone who has considered asking it, a part of what a good answer to it means involves knowing about what the other applicants are like - compare and contrast is the real substantive bit of the answer here. It might be possible to avoid that implication by phrasing the question differently, but I can't think of a way off the top of my head.
The backgrounds and capabilities of the other candidates applying isn't likely to be something a prospective employee has the ability to find out about.
Just having some basic research done about all the problems the prospective employee might be asked to solve on the job is a reasonable ask of a candidate. As a candidate I demonstrate that by reading as much about the company online as I can an incorporating that into other answers. As long as the interviewer understands the limitation around knowing what the competition pool is like and interprets the answer to this question in that context I'm sympathetic.
Again, it depends on the company's size and hiring stage, but I've never been at a company where we've wanted to hire exactly one applicant from a pool. Whenever I've done interviews, we've been perfectly willing to hire zero (if none meet our standards), or 3 (if we find that many who are great).
So I've never cared about how one candidate compares to another. It's not a zero-sum game. If you're going to have a positive impact on the company (and its bottom line), then I want 3 of you. If you're going to have a negative impact, then I want 0 of you.
Obviously, there are also many situation where the opposite is true, e.g., if you're building a baseball team you want the best roster even if some of the positions aren't ideal.
It's a silly question designed to throw people off balance. I dislike it. But if you look at it the other way, it's an easy opportunity for you to nicely package your value proposition (ideally in comparison to your competitors) in a few sentences e.g. "I'm a rare candidate that has experience in X but ALSO Y" or "I'm a new grad but I have X internships under my belt" or "I'm switching careers so I'm a junior engineer now, but I've functioned as a responsible adult in some other job before, which your other candidates haven't" etc etc.
It's also something that they'll end up using if they have to justify your hiring to other people, so there's value in making it good.
It's important to see how people will react under pressure, especially in consulting / client-facing gigs. You don't want to hire people whom are thin-skinned, dramatic, insecure or otherwise volatile. Think of these sort of gambits like shittests for candidates.
A) A recruiter is not going to be hiring you (but tread carefully because they're a foot that can be used in many doors)
B) You primary object is to formulate the answer to that question from what you can harvest throughout the interview
C) A positive, direct and clear answer should do nicely, almost always.
D) No puppies will be harmed unless you swing and miss and end up kicking your own puppy when you go home because you blew the question.
So, B. I can do many things in many ways. You should end up knowing exactly why they should hire you before they even ask.
Oh, and
E) Learn to recognize the ones you don't want to be hired for and quickly. Interviews can be stressful. You don't want to waste good energy on something you want to get away from as far and as quickly as possible. I've had exactly two of these.
It's hard to imagine how a recruiter could ask me that question without failing the interview. They should already know the answer before inviting me in, so are they wasting my time, or just fucking with me? Either way, I probably don't want to work there.
The question, to me, means "why should we hire you over this other equally qualified candidate?".
In that context, even if they know everything about you - that you've made public to them - there still might be some unique unknown standout reason why they should choose you over the other person.
Having an attitude about that would be an immediate disqualifier.
If that's the question they want me to answer, then that's the question they should ask. "Why should I hire you" is a power play, reframing the interview as a test I should be trying to pass in order to meet their approval, instead of a mutual exploration of potential compatibility. I sure hope my attitude about that kind of power imbalance disqualifies me, because egalitarianism is one of my fundamental values, and I don't want to work with people who would see it as a problem.
As it is usually the last question to be asked: take into account all of the cultural qualities they mention during the interview, then appeal to them: "I had always found I wanted to work in an open space because I believe that an atmosphere where people are forced to collaborate is exciting".
Then wait for their offer and use it to get hired by another company.
In some job markets (afaik Silicon Valley, and most high-prestige medical or legal positions) you can get multiple offers within a few days of each other, and this matters for driving up compensation, particularly the signing bonus when present.
edit for clarification:
This works by keeping all interested companies/firms/hospitals in the loop on where you are in the interview process with the other prospective employers. If they don't ask, you, the prospective employee, volunteer this information. Prospective employers adjust their interview schedules accordingly.
Sometimes, volunteering information that you're in demand and about to leave the job market because you have an offer in hand is enough information to get an offer when another prospective employer would otherwise would just keep looking, hoping somebody better might become available in the next couple weeks.
You should know something about the company. Tell them how you can help solve their problems.
If the question comes at the start of the interview, and you don't yet know enough about what the specific department is facing, respond, 'Why don't we discuss some of the problems you're facing, and I'll tell you how I can help with them.'
History's fine for backing up your claims. But people usually want to know what you can do for them.
P.S. Don't just paint yourself as a patsy problem mule (i.e. no boundaries and self-respect). Indicate also what you expect to get out of the deal and how you anticipate growing in the role).
Also, I guess job fairs are probably more of a "meat market". Nonetheless, if the person's really interested in recruiting, they should be interested in describing what they are trying to accomplish.
This is one of the few good, non-snarky responses here. I'd expand on it a little bit and make sure to say something specific about the work or the company and how your experience fits into that.
At a glance, the product I provide as a contractor / consultant is 'professional services automation'for MSPs and other industries (e.g Kaseya-Connectwise-ITGlue-Brightguage stack)
My answer is that the value I provide is far more strategic and macro level than just systems implementation.
I don't implement systems, I design processes, procedures and work instructions and map the entire org - Creating a living, breathing business manual. I automate and streamline the processes, provide reporting for transparency, continuous improvement and risk mitigation. I provide 'train the trainer' knowledge transfer (integrated with the system itself).
You purchase extensive strategic knowledge regarding the industry and company, which manifests as a future-proofed system that encourages as well as facilitates growth.
For every 10k you spend on my services, ROI will be > an order of magnitude.
My work brings firms up to ISO9001 standards, provides a quality management system, and implements as, customer satisfaction, team engagement, client retention and a host of procedures that SMEs haven't been able to think about or implement effectively.
Point being that (unlike many in this thread) I want to be asked this question from a prospective client, to show exactly what I can bring to the table.
It allows me to show the true opportunity cost of not hiring me (I.e., stagnation and hundreds of thousands of dollars in following years).
The best response I've got is probably "Well, hiring me will be expensive, but not as expensive as hiring the wrong applicant instead". However, for obvious reasons I wouldn't recommend actually using that one under most circumstances!
Being serious, anyone asking something like this is probably just expecting you to kiss ass without being too obvious about it. If you really could make an exceptional contribution, perhaps because it's a field you genuinely want to work in after doing some related research or project during your course, by all means mention that. Otherwise the best thing you can do with a question like this is be polite and constructive. It might help to pick up on specific things you could offer that have been touched on earlier in the interview or at least mentioned in the job spec. If it's still early in the interview and you haven't got to that sort of discussion yet, try to turn the conversation around and discuss what they're looking for and then how you could help.
You don't have to kiss ass. Instead, you can deflect and let interviewer answer the question. Something like this "I saw that X corp has an open position. This is an opportunity for me because ... , so I reached you. I assume, you are looking for is a qualified candidate who can do the job described. I saw the requirements and, I believe, I am qualified candidate. If you are not convinced yet, how can I change your mind?"...
I have a unique background, I have experience with A and with B which means I can navigate ambiguous/conflicting situations etc
Usually A and B are opposing skills, like "I can code" and "I enjoy talking to people" or "I know backend programming" and "I have experience doing HTML design work"
I think that the best way to answer this is with a story. Explain that you (the recruiter) already know a lot about me by way of my (applicant's) application but this (story) is what you don't know about me and that it may be important. Make the story memorable and truthful. Make it something that couldn't have fit into the interview otherwise and end by saying that now you know a little bit more about my character and I hope it helps you remember me.
"Why should we hire you?" is up there with Donald Trump style handshakes, group interviews, and other petty, controlling, derogatory, disrespectful, arrogant, insulting, pretentious, and abusively bureaucratic hiring techniques that are regrettably common.
The abusiveness in the question lies in it's asymmetry. It's like playing a catch/throw ball game with somebody and they intentionally throw the ball far enough to the side to where they know you can't catch it, but they want to see you try. The best move, of course, is to not subject yourself to the indignity, not to try, and to make them go pick up the ball. You should probably also stop playing ball with that morally deranged person.
The only reason, short of ignorance, I can imagine a hiring manager being motivated to ask a question like this is to find out if they can abuse you and get away with it. The willingness to be subjected to abuse is sometimes something that managers want in their employees.
Walk away.
If they use that specific phrase, they are playing dominance games with you.
If you choose to sacrifice your self respect and enter into a relationship with an immature petty tyrant like that, you’re in for a world of pain.
Honestly I find this question weird and creepy. I think that must be because it breaches some psychological boundary. I've never asked it as an interviewer and never been asked it as a candidate. Perhaps someone has been watching too much "The Apprentice"?
That said I'm not sure what I'd recommend. Tempted to say I'd terminate the interview but that also feels weird and creepy. Perhaps just chuckle playfully and hope they don't press for an answer?
It may be an opportunity for the interviewer to see your sales skills and ability to advocate for yourself. As much as that may make some people uncomfortable to do, I'd say those can be valuable skills to demonstrate. My response would depend on specifics to the scenario. My suggestion would be learn about convincing ways to sell and to advocate for yourself. Not being able to do those things will be a significant detriment, and not just in finding a job.
I once answered that question with "Well if I could give you an objective answer for that then it would suggest I know your business better than you do. But as I don't know you business that well I don't feel qualified to answer." I agree with most that it is not a good question.
That said, being able to consider a question that is irrelevant or poorly specified can demonstrate a certain amount of 'quickness' or ability to think on your feet.
Most of the projects I've worked on have had making money as a root motivation.
"By doing X, Y and Z you'll make more money", with evidence and a reasonable plan, is a decent argument. I've made these pitches as a leaf node in large companies and it's generally gone over well.
It's the answers like "I will empower your organization to..." or "We'll leverage synergy and..." that you should avoid.
I imagine the "make money" pitch will sound bad to a research group, or a governmental or quasi-governmental organization. But for many other places, assuming you're not blowing smoke, it seems pretty reasonable.
I have actually had this asked of me. It was at a finance info-tech security company in the USA. The guy who was interviewing me was a total as*le and I regret not just walking out on him. He also asked me several questions which were probing of my marital status and family history/racial background.
I might have been asked this other times but that's the one I remember.
This specific question implies that there is a power imbalance between you and the recruiter. Implying such a thing is slightly rude (even if the power imbalance is there, the social convention is to ignore it). So, how do you want to handle someone being slightly rude?
You could play the game on their terms, and just list your skills/characteristics. Of course the recruiter already knows them, so the signal you're sending is obedience in the face of slight rudeness.
You could be a little more forceful and (politely) say something like this: "before we talk about that I'd like to better understand which problems you need me to see if there is a fit between my skills and the needs of your organization."
You could be even more forceful and respond to slight etiquette transgression with a follow up transgression. For example, "I don't quite think this is the right framing, I'd like to first understand why I should work for you."
It's just a game, a dance. Don't think about it literally and play with the steps.