The classic interview question, ‘Why do you want to work for us?’ has been a staple in job interviews for decades, designed ostensibly to gauge a candidate’s enthusiasm and compatibility with the company. However, as hiring practices evolve and the job market fluctuates, this question’s relevance is increasingly coming into question. Some argue that it is a mere formality that often leads to rehearsed answers, while others insist it serves valuable purposes, such as testing a candidate’s preparation and sincerity. But let’s be real—most of us are in it for the paycheck, and sometimes more thought-provoking or specific questions can yield far better insights.
One prevalent criticism is that the question is often not taken literally. As user ‘underwater’ rightly noted, it’s a starting point for discussing career passions and aspirations. However, ‘Eji1700’ provides a counterpoint, asserting that there are better ways to uncover someone’s ambitions. For many candidates, particularly those applying for entry-level positions or in a tight job market, the real answer might simply be, ‘I’d like to not starve.’ This reality can discredit the question, turning it into a performative dance for those well-versed in interview rituals rather than a genuine dialogue about fitting into a company’s culture and mission.
That said, there’s an element of irony when considering how some companies might expect elaborate, enthusiastic responses from candidates who are merely looking to meet basic needs. ‘Underdeserver’ suggests that the intent behind the question is valid—it aims to discern why a qualified candidate would pick this company over others. However, ‘mjevans’ hits the nail on the head by reflecting on how effective it could be if recruiters framed the question better. For instance, asking ‘Why do you want to choose us over others?’ gives clearer guidance and context, helping candidates provide more focused and honest answers.
Interestingly, some commenters who support the traditional question argue that it’s about identifying candidates with genuine alignment to the company’s goals and culture. Yet, others argue that such expectations can be overly idealistic and irrelevant for many technical or backend roles. As ‘kareemm’ points out, certain jobs, particularly in niche industries like sports or entertainment, may benefit from candidates who possess inherent passion for the subject. This, however, is not always applicable. Finding a candidate excited about managing enterprise software or working at a debt collection agency just because they ‘live and breathe it’ seems far-fetched and impractical.
To add further complexity, some see the question as a gatekeeping tool, weeding out those unwilling to play the ‘passion’ game. ‘Kirillzubovsky’ offers a compelling argument, noting how the application process often feels like a game, with candidates crafting the perfect but hollow responses. This phenomenon encourages a culture of inauthenticity, where the ‘right’ answer often trumps the honest one. As the job market continues to evolve, it’s crucial for companies to recognize when they are truly benefitting from such questions and when they are just perpetuating an outdated ritual. Modern hiring practices need to be more nuanced and understanding of the diverse motivations that drive candidates to apply.
Leave a Reply