Hacker News Reader

Comment by mahrain | Hacker News Reader

I really hate this kind of questions. It will make any candidate feel like they're being tricked, and any "wrong answer" (look at the list there of "externalities") will surely be confronted with plenty more follow-up questions. I don't see how this would select the right person for a job. You want to know if they fit in (company culture, your "externalities") and you want to know if they'll be capable of doing the job, that's all. Why should one be required to bare their soul, check any privacy at the door and jump through hoops for a job?

View on HN

I'd reply:

Since I have to assess this opportunity using the process you seek to understand, I'd prefer to keep that to myself.

That's your discretion but for the sake of argument, what's the value in keeping that information private?

If both the candidate and the employer are honest in communicating their priorities in regard to what they hope to get out of the relationship it allows both parties to better understand each other. Additionally, assuming they are sufficiently aligned, such discussion allows both parties to focus on things that matter to everybody involved and not waste time quibbling over things nobody cares about.

If everybody is honest about their priorities, does the question need to be asked at all? Why wouldn't the interviewer, or even the job ad/posting/req/etc. itself, list them?

Try a simpler example to understand the value. Imagine employer asks you in the interview "what's the minimum salary you are willing to accept for this position? Come on, just be honest - tell me what you want to make"

PS. In a perfect world every job posting would state compensation, all perks, and an honest and detailed description of work environment. And every interview would consist of just one simple question: "are you qualified to do the job?". Unfortunately, the world we live in is a bit more complicated.

Yeah, give me all the information I need to take all of the advantage.

Trading off something you pretend to care about for something you actually care about is one standard negotiating ploy.

I think this is a great question - the ensuing conversation can tell the interviewee as much about the place they'll be working as it can the interviewer about the candidate. I think the point isn't there's a "right" or "wrong" answer, as much as it's a test for cultural and directional fit - presumably, it's better for everyone involved to figure out if the company and the candidate have completely different near-term or long-term goals.

I understand why someone would hate this kind of question, but ultimately the point of any interview is to evaluate the candidate as a match for a particular role and position. I've always been told that there is not such thing as a bad candidate, only a bad fit. I find that it's helpful to think of this in those terms. Also, I really do mean that there isn't the one "correct" answer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com