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.

I like this response and agree with you.

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.

Make sure it's a check you can cash though.

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.

My "work personality" is to do things that will earn the business money and not things that cost the business money.

Usually peoples negative qualities cost the business money.

This is definitely my favorite in this thread

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.

You appear to do recruitment differently to me based on your response to the question that I would never bother to ask.

That sort of adversarial bollocks is a bit shallow and something I would never bother with.

I have two employees that came back after leaving - you?

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.

>somewhere, a puppy gets a slap

Wat

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.