That seems a little disingenuous. Of course they know you’re there primarily for money, so that’s not really the question they’re asking. They’re really asking “why are you looking for money from us and not someone else?” You can be cynical and call that “performance” or be realistic and recognize it as communication shorthand.

Are you assuming “money” isn’t also the answer to this implied question?

Haha maybe that’s the answer for you personally. I wouldn’t take more money for a worse job (generally), so I guess I am assuming money isn’t also the second answer

By the time I have offers in hand I’ve deemed each company to be worth working for, so there is no matter of one job being “worse” than the other — they are all acceptable. If there was something I disliked I would have terminated the hiring process.

I guess if someone has a fixation on some particular technology or industry then that could be a distinguishing factor. But I’m motivated solely by the capacity for me to make a positive impact and be appreciated. However, any company that isn’t completely dysfunctional will (at least, from the outside, appear to) check that checkbox.

Maybe I have just had good luck with my interviews so far and I am thus taking (at the point in time that I’m choosing between competing offers) some critical thing that usually varies between employers for granted. I dunno.

if money is the only reason, you can get money elsewhere.

it ties back to theory of employee motivation, money being only external motivator. For high performance, employee needs also internal motivation (drive).

employees with internal motivation are miles ahead and more productive than without one

> if money is the only reason, you can get money elsewhere.

And they are all asking the same question. Will they accept an answer like "because you're only a 7 minute commute from my house", "I think the work will be easy in relation to the salary", or "I think I can get away with barely doing anything for an indefinitely long time period because your org is large and dysfunctional"?

You ask for a performance, you get a performance. Or maybe you're just asking for a rube?

by asking "why you wanna work for our company", they really are asking "What are you willing to sacrifice while working for our company"?, just in a roundabout way

> employees with internal motivation are miles ahead and more productive than without one.

Isn’t that invariant with respect to (prospective) employer?

I naturally feel motivated to do a good job and earn the respect of my coworkers, and the satisfaction and pride that comes with a job well done. In addition to my work output, the title I hold and the salary I’ve earned are evidence to my friends, family and romantic interests of my drive to generate value and the expertise I’ve tirelessly worked towards developing. This further motivates me do good work.

I don’t see why “internal motivation” would vary between employers. Could you give examples of attributes that contribute to your own level of motivation?

You can earn money from practically any business. Why do you want to earn money from this business? What about it makes you more interested to spend your time here than somewhere else? Lots of places pay well, after all.

Engineers whose only interest (and competency) in tech stems from "$$$$" are usually not the best to work with.

What is wild about this question is that I would get asked this sort of stuff while applying for minimum wage work way back in highschool, on paper applications and in interviews. You are short staffed for a given shift and I am available to work then, that should be the extent of the application and interview for unskilled labor where you don't even give me benefits and charge me for my uniform.

> why are you looking for money from us and not someone else?

But again, in most cases, the answer is "because your company seems tolerable to work for and you advertised an opening and I need work". So you're back to performing.

I think what's cynical is that the honest answer would disqualify someone. The interviewer can always follow up with a more specific question.

Generally, employers want to screen out apathy, which isn't conducive to creativity, productivity, ingenuity, and worst of all, is contagious.

I agree that asking that question in an interview probably isn't the best method of screening out apathy, but that's why they ask it. I don't actually know what the best method is.

Don't hate the player hate the game.

I had an elderly relative on the admission committee for a med school in the 80s-90s.

He told us that he only downgraded someone if lots of money were the only reason to apply.

It's funny that this won't get you hired considering an employee motivated purely by money would do all the corporate malarky to try and run up that compensation ladder. HR should be preferring candidates with these tendencies if they want someone who will actually hit all their metrics.