3 ms·

I agree that the interviewee should know a answer. I don't like the spite/table flip answers suggested elsewhere for sure - I expect a prospective employee to b

I agree that the interviewee should know a answer. I don't like the spite/table flip answers suggested elsewhere for sure - I expect a prospective employee to be cooperative and marginally helpful no matter what. However, speaking as somebody that has been asked this question, and someone who has considered asking it, a part of what a good answer to it means involves knowing about what the other applicants are like - compare and contrast is the real substantive bit of the answer here. It might be possible to avoid that implication by phrasing the question differently, but I can't think of a way off the top of my head. The backgrounds and capabilities of the other candidates applying isn't likely to be something a prospective employee has the ability to find out about. Just having some basic research done about all the problems the prospective employee might be asked to solve on the job is a reasonable ask of a candidate. As a candidate I demonstrate that by reading as much about the company online as I can an incorporating that into other answers. As long as the interviewer understands the limitation around knowing what the competition pool is like and interprets the answer to this question in that context I'm sympathetic.

ken 9y ago
Again, it depends on the company's size and hiring stage, but I've never been at a company where we've wanted to hire exactly one applicant from a pool. Whenever I've done interviews, we've been perfectly willing to hire zero (if none meet our standards), or 3 (if we find that many who are great). So I've never cared about how one candidate compares to another. It's not a zero-sum game. If you're going to have a positive impact on the company (and its bottom line), then I want 3 of you. If you're going to have a negative impact, then I want 0 of you. Obviously, there are also many situation where the opposite is true, e.g., if you're building a baseball team you want the best roster even if some of the positions aren't ideal.

ken 9y ago

Again, it depends on the company's size and hiring stage, but I've never been at a company where we've wanted to hire exactly one applicant from a pool. Whenever I've done interviews, we've been perfectly willing to hire zero (if none meet our standards), or 3 (if we find that many who are great). So I've never cared about how one candidate compares to another. It's not a zero-sum game. If you're going to have a positive impact on the company (and its bottom line), then I want 3 of you. If you're going to have a negative impact, then I want 0 of you. Obviously, there are also many situation where the opposite is true, e.g., if you're building a baseball team you want the best roster even if some of the positions aren't ideal.