Let's Stop Asking "Why Do You Want to Work for Us?" In Interviews

Enh. When I interviewed at ESPN the first few questions were about sports knowledge: were you a fan who understood the storylines and stats? Or did you just want a job?

If you had somehow managed to slip through the HR screening without being a sports fan then the day of interviews would root that out and you would not get an offer.

It ensured that everybody who was there lived and breathed sports and would run through walls to create a great product.

Compare to later when I worked at FOXSports.com where sports knowledge was a bonus. The product was worse and the team had to spend too much time (more than 0 minutes) explaining to a front end dev why a baseball box score had an order that stats were always displayed in because that’s the way fans expected it (true story).

I think the value of the question is that, all things being equal, do you want the person who wants to be there because they have a connection to what you do, or do you want someone who just wants a job?

I’d pick the former.

It never hurts to take a moment to figure out the real game that's being played when someone asks an especially trite interview question. (Like this one.) Here's what I've been told by HR executives in candid moments about "Why do you want to work for us?"

-- It's an easy way of finding out whether the candidate has done some homework about the company and the role. For insecure interviewers, it's a request to be flattered. For confident ones, it's a way of finding out whether the candidate has identified a specific opportunity that she or he is genuinely excited about. Having employees who are intrinsically motivated works out better than just a group of paycheck collectors.

-- It's a way of finding out whether you might be promotable. That's especially important in a growing company. As opportunities increase, there's an "up or out" dynamic that moves the most valuable employees into bigger roles, while shedding the ones that have little chance of rising higher. (Netflix is famously candid about this; many other companies think the same way but don't surface it.)

I feel like this article undermines itself a bit with:

> Sure, the tech stack might be exciting. Or the product may be compelling. The work-life balance may be good. But I promise you that the biggest reason is still money.

I was always under the impression that for a paid job, the reason of money is assumed. Companies want to hear your other reasons - to show you are at least trying to appreciate what they're about aside from making money. Was the question ever being asked to find the main reason?

Why do you even think that you are expected to lie? Out of tens of thousands of companies on the market, you chose maybe ten to apply, including mine. Why? “Because I need money” is not an answer, or at least not the complete one. Somehow, ten companies out of thousands fit your filter. Why? That's all I want to know as an interviewer when I ask that question. Saying “you have the best compensation” is completely okay. Saying “you fit my developer profile” is also completely okay. It’s ridiculous that anyone could think that some company praise is in order. Just tell the truth, stop making up cases to be offended by an interview question.

I have worked for three companies over the past decade, well the second one was an acquisition, anyway, only the last one asked me why I want to work there, I gave an honest answer, it was easy to answer because I grew up reading about things they do.

Last month I was laid off among many other during this AI race. And I was given something called a score sheet to tell me why I was selected, while the performance score was maximum, I was not not "flexible" enough. The only thing I could think off is the conversation I had with my manager about the direction the company is going towards, but alas they went on a holiday after scoring me.

The companies might want smart and passionate people, but they never want smart, passionate, and honest people. If you don't have a brown tongue, you'll not survive.

>Do you really want to to be lied to by every candidate?

You misjudge managers. In my experience, managers want conformity in service of the company. The lie signals the willingness to conform in service of the company.

There is no need to make this more complicated than it really is. In this individual's case the conversation could go as follows:

> Q: Why do you want to work for us?

> A: Because I need the money.

Generalization is dangerous and people want to join groups of other people for many different reasons. Some of them are bored and have nothing better to do with their time. Others are charmed by that particular group of people because of who those people are or the kind of work that they do. A few are interested in moving to a different city or country and expanding their horizons. Making it sound like this is all about money everywhere all the time seems nihilistic and pretty depressing to me. I would not want to work with a person who is doing it just for the money or refuses to give a reason why they wish to join my group. I suppose therein lies the merit of asking "why".

Unpopular take : Money being the right answer for arguably 99% of the time, probably the real back of the mind test is how convincingly can you manage a question whose answer is obvious, and navigate to give a different answer which may sound even more obvious, atleast on the table at that point in time.

Disclaimer : I never ask these questions, I am a generalist and appreciate knowledge around wide variety of fields instead of hyper focus into one.

The point of soft questions like this in interviews is to test social skills and agreeability. While I get the motivation to cut the BS, I wouldn't want to work with people lacking social skills either.

this article is missing the picture. Yes the candidate engineer / salesperson / marketer is motivated by money.

But of all the things they could work on, why this team, problem or company? Many jobs will pay similar money.

Some version of this question is extremely helpful in (a) understanding if the candidate is going to be disappointed/not get what they want a few months into the job (b) identifying what motivates them, to help them find fulfllment and growth in their career (part of your job as a manager).

It’s not asking “why do you want to work”, it’s asking “why us, and not someone else”.

The question assumes that you have a choice of multiple people you could work for.

Why do you want to work for an indie game studio and not EA? Why backend engineer rather than front end? Is there something you see in our company other than money that means you want to stick around for a few years rather than move after a few months?

Ironically the author of the article seems to change jobs every year, so isn’t particularly loyal which is one of the things this question is trying to fish out - will you stay for long enough that you become useful.

It might be that OPs sole motivation is money, but that’s not universally true and is a pretty unattractive trait if it is.

I only interview for a fraction of the positions I get contacted about.

When it has been time to make a career change, I've always had multiple options for which position/company to choose.

I don't think I ever took the offer with the highest total comp.

I socialize with computers more readily than humans. At least they're only wrong when confused or ordered to lie (intentionally written software).

I believe the context matters:

In a poorer economy where it's hard to find jobs it would be a dumb question as the candidate is probably applying everywhere to make money and pay their rent.

In a place where things are easier financially, the question would make some sense: there might be multiple options, many companies to work for and the candidate is not in immediate desperate need for money, so "why us?" makes sense.

We all know its all about the money.

I want to know that you care enough to have done a modicum of research on your new potential employer. And in turn, that you can give a short answer on why you might want to spend 40 some hours a week with us.

If you can't do that, (and it really just is all about the money) then that's just a precursor to a disaster or new future burn out.

If you frame it as an abbreviated form of "Aside from the money, why do you want to work for us?", it makes more sense. Sure, the answer might be a lie but it can also be an opportunity for the interviewee to demonstrate interview preparedness.

Yes, people work for money, but you still have interests after that. Do you want a person who wants money and has an interest in your company or do you want a person who wants money and has no interest in your company?

If the question is meant as “Tell me what you think is great about us” then that’s lame.

If it’s meant as “What about us motivates you to apply?” then that’s a good question.

It is a pretty dumb question, in that you can fabricate an answer ahead of time without much hassle.

I do think a lot of older devs don't really just do it for the money anymore. They tend to get more particular and only apply for jobs that they will find personally fulfilling. And that makes answering the question easy. Not that being older makes getting a job at easier, though.

Maybe the question is there to filter out crusty cynics who aren't up for the very basic bullshitting it takes to get along in a team setting.

This is such a weird take. The question is not meant to be literal. It’s a starting point to a discussion about career passions and aspirations.

Every job pays money, mostly around the same range (at least in your search range)

Sure, if a company offers 2x pay, I'm there for the money. But otherwise, asking why they want to work specifically for you is a proper question. And I never came across of the 2x company.

"Why do you want to work?" is a very different question than "Why do you want to work for us?"

Last time I was asked that, I got very annoyed but caught myself before getting pithy and turned it around. I said I don’t know that I do yet, we’re both still trying to figure out if this is a good fit. But here are the things that attracted my attention, and here’s how they overlap with my experience and skills. It seemed to go over well.

The labor market is a market like any other.

Some markets are competitive and require sales (and sales looks very different in different markets). Some markets have differentiated products or services and some markets have fungible commodities. Some markets are under-served and any old product will do, without the need to sell.

Learn your market.

That, and "where do you see yourself in five years" are, in my opinion, two of the most pointless things an interviewer can ask. The answers give no real insight as to their suitability for the role, and both questions basically require the candidate to qive a BS answer.

Many people applying for a job already have one, and will expect to make a similar amount of money at a new job. It's a perfectly normal question.

If the candidate is currently jobless, then I agree the question is bad, verging on the insulting. You're probably one of many they are applying to.

Everyone needs to be motivated by the job.

Think a teacher/nurse, would you find it ok for them to answer “for the money”.

Another angle to it; you can be professional and explain your goals but also you can’t be desperate, no one likes that, even if you are desperate you need to act professional about that.

It's just one of those questions that will filter out people. I am trying to discern a lot more than technical aptitude, given how many technically adept people I have worked with who have been nightmare employees.

i think it can be a fair and productive question in a sense. like yeah realistically the person being interviewed doesn't have an undying passion for whatever the business does, but at least for me, when i'm looking for work there's always some jobs that are just an instant "nope not interested" and some that i know i want to go for straight away. asking what it was about a specific role that made that difference to a candidate could absolutely spark a useful and productive conversation.

If a company isn't excited about hiring me, whatever, I can move on.

I've only applied to places with technology that interests me. To those that dislike the question, why would you want to work at a place that doesn't at least mildly interest you?

I'm not sure if it's helpful, but if you want some perspective from someone that's interviewed a few hundred software engineering candidates..

I ask this question to every candidate I interview. My expectations for this question are very low.

I find it's a very effective screener for low effort applications. A lot of candidates I interview haven't even looked at our company website.

If you're the kind of person that's doing zero preparation for a job interview, I've already learned something about you.

Many people I interview just answer the question very directly:

- "I got laid off"

- "My current company is returning to office and I want to work from home".

- "I've been working at X for 5 years now and I'm bored"

- "I want to make more money"

- "I want to work with an international team"

.. honestly, that's all totally fine.

I agree that there's no need to pretend about your motivations—I'm not expecting a lot of enthusiasm about writing boring business software at my company.

On the other hand, if you've done some basic research about the company or the role and can ask some good questions—I'm learning something about your intelligence, conscientiousness and self-awareness, which are actually the things I'm testing for.

Job interviews are full of latent variables like this. As an interviewer I want to find out if you're good at X, but I can't just ask "are you good at X?". I need to test you out by asking other questions that demonstrate X.

answer: because you guys pay more than the next company.

If a company provides equity, then it might be a good question to ask. After all, the employee would be investing into the future the company.

Of course they want money, which is why the question is asked in the first place. The key issue is money can't be their only motivation. How can you expect someone to be creative or innovative when they're not passionate about their work? I'll admit, there might be a more interesting way of asking the question, but I think the motivation behind the it is reasonable.

The question is not completely useless if the interviewer does not expect to receive in any case an answer that shows how much cool aid has been absorbed. Most companies are just that, a place to work and earn some money, regardless of how enthusiastic the company some internal fanboys are. But I don't agree that the biggest reason is mostly money, there could be some good answers to that question.

Would you expect the food to be good if the cook in the restaurant doesn't want to eat it himself?

If you don’t have faith in or care for what you’re producing, it’s unlikely to be successful.

I think you're missing the point of the question. Qualified candidates have options. The question is why do they want to choose you over the other places.

No, I will not stop asking this in interviews.

The point of this question is to understand your carrier goals but also to show that you came well prepared and have done your homework about the position and the company. Experience has shown that those who can't give a satisfactory answer to this question are going to a burden to their future team.