"I believe I've demonstrated that I'll deliver significantly more value with my work than I'll cost you in salary and benefits."

That's pretty much the reason anyone should hire you, for any role, in any industry.

Most interviews are really about demonstrating the value you'll deliver. Keep that in mind with every question you answer. When talking about your skills and experience, describe how you'd use them to help the company your're interviewing with.

If you're being interviewed by the hiring manager, ask them questions to determine what his or her specific problems are, and talk about how you'll help solve those problems. If you've done that, you should probably skip the equivocating and just say:

"You'll make more money from my work than I'll cost in salary and benefits."

Because if you haven't already convinced your interviewer of that by the time you're asked the "why should I hire you?" question, you probably don't have a chance regardless of your answer.

EDIT: I like the points some people have replied with! Answer #2 would probably work best if you're a short term contractor who has to deliver cold, hard value quickly.

My initial responses were probably a bit of a grumpy off-the-cuff response to an interview question I think is a bit pointless. The general sentiment is true, but if the interview has been conducted with minimal competency by the interviewer, then you'll have already spent the whole interview talking about why they should hire you and the value you deliver.

If instead they open with "why should I hire you?", that's probably not a sign that the interview is going to go well either.

Keep in mind, the person deciding to hire you is often somewhat removed from the bottom line of the company's financials. Even though the end-goal is to make the company more money, the hiring manager is often not primarily motivated by that. They're looking for someone who will deliver quality work while fitting in well with the rest of the team (this part is so important).

So my advice would be to add a tinge of enthusiasm and a display of personality that you believe would mesh well with the "vibe" of the existing team. Something like "Given that you're working on projects A, B, and C, I think my experience with X, Y, and Z can really help improve both the velocity of the team, as well as the quality of our output". You're saying basically the same thing, but more in manager-speak (depends on the manager, of course).

I know these are all qualitative/subjective things whereas your statement is very objective, but that's because I don't believe the hiring process is all about technical merit and productivity. As much as we might dislike it, it's about "fit", whatever that means.

Why can't someone just be a professional who generates value?

Not that it can't be important; it can, but the downside is that passion often evaporates when things get difficult. So I'd rather hire someone who is driven by determination and discipline, and uses passion as a nice boost when they can.

It's frustrating to work with someone who gets sulky when we have to slog through the non-fun development tasks that are part of nearly every project. Yes, those parts are no fun, but the faster we buckle down and power through them, the better off we are.

Interestingly, I've found that the best developers I've worked with were the stone cold professionals who just powered through everything, whether it was enjoyable or excruciating. They weren't a bunch of grumpy old farts, either. They were some of the most friendly, jovial people I've had the pleasure of working with over the years.

I've seen employers describe their projects/startups and then they just wait for a reaction to gauge if it's something I would consider "fun", they seem surprised when I say I'm game for pretty much anything that solves someone's problem/has active users.

I even love taking care of the un-sexy tasks that nobody else really likes/there's a fight for, especially documentation -- I've written so many internal wiki pages I'm actually kinda sorry they're all locked up behind a login screen.

Any other task that sparks the brain, for whatever reason, is just a nice bonus.

Personally, I wouldn't ask the "why should I hire you" question, because it's a dumb question IMHO, but if I did and someone answered "Because I will make you more money than you'll pay me" and left it at that, I'd have some misgivings about that answer. It's tough for me articulate exactly why, but I just can't say I'd be thrilled with that answer. Someone who optimizes themselves for "make the company more money than I'm paid" doesn't really say much about what it's like to work with them. The statement doesn't do a good job of "selling yourself", IMHO.

Have you not accepted Babel into your heart?

  To transpile or not to transpile, that is the question:
  Whether 'tis nobler in the open-plan office to suffer
  The slings and arrows of EcmaScript 5
  Or to take Arms against a Sea of callbacks,
  And by asyncing, end them

Because fit. Because duty has limits, but passion can be exploited. In the words of Leonard Cohen: "He taught that the duty of lovers / is to tarnish the golden rule."

Wow, no, that's not even remotely true. My years of experience and track record of delivering completed products is my most valuable asset.

Enthusiasm doesn't get the job done. Enthusiasm and passion are fleeting.

Honestly, I cannot express how horrified I am by your reply.

You have had your entire interview to demonstrate your competence. At this stage of the interview, if you have not yet demonstrated competence, no answer to this question is going to get you hired.

A good answer to a bullshit question just demonstrates your skill at bullshitting. If that's what the company is looking for, hopefully you can find employment elsewhere.

My advice, when you get asked a stupid interview question, tell them why you think it's a stupid question. You'll either blow the interview, or find a place that values your opinion.

Second piece of advice, don't follow the advice of random idiots on the internet.

When interviewing I look for people that just don't sit back and do what they're told. Someone proactive who can think of different ways of doing things. I would like to hear an answer like "Compared to other developers I've worked with in the past, I make more of an effort to talk with end users and try to target the system to make it more usable rather than just getting the functionality done." That shows something that might appeal more than the last guy we just interviewed.

I know other people like predictable developers who can crank out code from a big Jira list. Maybe they would like an answer about productivity over costs.

As you can tell it depends on the people, there is no right answer. :)

I fear I did a horrible job of describing it in those terms, though. Or perhaps the thoughtful responses like yours have just helped me clarify my thoughts on the topic. Because in reality, I'm a huge proponent of the creative side of development. I think it's often so underrated by many companies and interviewers.

Creativity is absolutely part of the value a good developer provides, and creative developers shouldn't hesitate to discuss that in interviews.

It'll sometimes be the case that the company of person interviewing you won't value creativity. Which is actually super useful to find out, because interviews are a two-way process. If you're a creative developer, and an interviewer makes it clear they don't care about that, they've helped you by letting you know unequivocally that you don't want you work for them.

In the past, I've interviewed with some early stage startup founders and CTOs who are intimately familiar with the company's bottom line, and who appreciated simple, direct answers.

It's probably smart in most cases to reiterate the value you'll deliver. Working well with the rest is the team is absolutely part of that value.

The first answer I wrote assume you've already described your unique qualities, skills, perspectives earlier in the interview. Because all of those non-monetary contributions absolutely provide value. And they definitely can be, and often are, the difference between success and failure for teams and companies.

I think if you've spent the interview gently highlighting all of the ways you provide value, then when you're hit with a closing question like "Why should I hire you?", you likely won't need to spend too much time describing what that value is. Reiterating a few of the points would often be a good idea, though.

The second, more blunt answer I wrote is probably most appropriate if you're a contractor who has to come in, deliver something valuable very quickly, and then go away.

You spend the entire interview being friendly, likable, and at ease while fluidly and competently answering the interviewer's questions.

I know that sounds like a trite answer, sort of like the How to Draw an Owl instructions[1]. But interviewing is something you can practice for and become good at. Or at least better at. There are quite a few good books on the topic.

That's not to say the candidates you're competing against won't also be likable. But I've interviewed lots of developers over the years, though, and if you're a developer who is competent technically who also interviews well, you'll be far ahead of most of the people you're competing against.

[1] http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/572078-how-to-draw-an-owl

I'm the only one from my country that apply for this position (how do I know? they tell me).

This interview process, is not the first process. before the interview, there is a "skills assessment" session, that I am passed.

I have to know how many candidate left. Sometimes that can motivate you (for me of course).

It isn't to be told that you are a good value proposition. That is obvious. Just as it is obvious that the reason you want the job is to pay your bills.

The point of the question (like many of such generic questions) is to learn more about you than your skills.

You response would tell me that you are business-oriented. Tend to prefer to work with facts. Strive to be technically correct. Probably don't BS a lot and may have some issues working in teams that are sensitive to such types.

Of course I would integrate that with other indicators during the interview.

Be aware though, many of these soft questions aren't really about what they are asking.

That said, I'd judge the audience before I phrased it like that... (and you'd have to _actually_ be good)

If you're looking to edge your way into a BigCo role where you can look busy without actually doing much (hey, I'm not going to judge you if that's your cup of tea), you're more likely to succeed with equivocation, pontification, and bloviation (though not necessarily in that order).

I decided to err on the side of bluntness because blunt, to-the-point statements are probably easier for people take and adapt to their own circumstances.

I was honest with my current company. I told them 5 years from now I'd be considering moving back closer to family with sufficient experience and promotions on my resume to demonstrate my ability to acquire work that pays better than what engineers typically make in that region. I also told them it's unlikely I'd be at the company longer than 2-3 years without some very interesting work.

I had a similar level of honesty with an employer I was interviewing with several years ago and they turned me down (without indicating the reason, but clearly the honesty for that question either worked against me or had little or no impact on the decision).

In the latter case that's probably a good thing since you probably wouldn't want to work for a company that will judge you negatively for voicing an honest opinion (or prediction). Sounds like a toxic environment brewing from the get-go.

Still a bad question, in my opinion.

It's not bold, it's a perfectly reasonable question. In most parts of the US, it's a developer's market. Exploit that while you can.

FWIW, every time I've asked this question, the response is always for the interviewer (sometimes with a slight smile) to try to sell me on working there. Never have I gotten a response like you predicted, and I'd be very surprised if I ever do.

You're not a fungible assembly line worker; you're a highly skilled individual in great demand. Even if you don't really believe that, find a way to convince yourself of it temporarily before the interview: it will have positive results.

There's only one of me to go around, so I'm pretty particular about where I am.

Not that I'd ever ask the question myself, but I'd expect the best candidates to respond with indignation.

In my eyes, the question shows hostility towards the interviewee.

Regardless, being unable to hold your temper in the face of a pointless/stupid/vaguely insulting question is a really bad sign for a candidate. If you can't handle this, how are you going to handle it when someone bluntly calls one of your designs terrible?

I didn't mean to suggest the candidate should launch into a tirade or anything, just that the indignation would ideally be evident yet subtle.

>If you can't handle this, how are you going to handle it when someone bluntly calls one of your designs terrible?

The flip side of this is that candidates who find nothing wrong with the question are far more likely to not mete out such critiques. The last thing you want is your organization rotting from within because nobody's speaking their mind.

I don't think that subtle indignation is a healthy response. If you're so bothered by this question, I think you should say so. A direct, honest response is far more mature way to handle it than acting annoyed by the question. I could respect a candidate telling me directly that the question is insulting. It would be harder to respect a candidate who responds to the question with snark or sarcasm or an eye roll or any other indication of "subtle indignation".

> The flip side of this is that candidates who find nothing wrong with the question are far more likely to not mete out such critiques. The last thing you want is your organization rotting from within because nobody's speaking their mind.

I don't follow this connection at all. I don't think that being annoyed by this question is very related to giving blunt feedback.

Then the interview quickly turns into a robotic caricature straight out of an HR manual. Why make the whole situation awkward and probably tank the interview just to state the obvious.

Besides, the entire scenario largely depends on context. I'm sure most people would find it far more beneign if the question was posed by an HR person at BigCo, rather than by the founder of a smaller company.

Don't view it as an "ok, so you did fine I guess, but you better justify your existence now and play mind games" type of thing. Instead, view it as an opportunity to end the interview with your best foot forward. Use it as an excuse to do three things.

1: Summarize what went particularly well in the interview. Your interview was probably not perfect, and this question lets you refresh the good parts in your interviewers' minds right before leaving.

2: Talk about why you think this job is something that you would enjoy. Your most valuable asset to this company is your enthusiasm. It's excited and enthused employees that drive the workplace.

3: Bring up stuff that you wish they had asked you but that didn't come up. Did you make something cool a while ago that showcases your skills, but it never came up in conversation? Now is the perfect time to show it off.

This makes me want to puke.

Sorry, I should have said: besides your competence, your enthusiasm is your most valuable asset.

In more detail: assuming all other things equal, an employee who wants to be where he or she is will be more valuable than an employee who is bored. You have had your entire interview to demonstrate your competence. Assuming you have done so, when you're down to the final softball question, enthusiasm matters. Assuming you have not done so, no answer to this question is going to get you hired.

Cue eye-twitch...

Right - it was meant to be facetious.

I have two scenarios:

a) They don't want to hire you.

b) They do want to hire you, but are incompetent at interviewing.

A key realization from poker is that if you're in the a bucket your answer to this question _literally doesn't matter_, so you optimize for the case where they do want to hire you. I think that this would counsel a response which is chest-thumping by HN standards but still likely to be effective. (Think of how you would deliver the answer to that question if you were utterly indifferent to their approval, because it's so patently obvious, and a little bored before your next meeting.)

The best answer to this question is, "I've heard you say that you are looking for a, b and c, and I think that I can mesh well with your team and accomplish these things."

1: "I am always learning. I am not afraid to try a new technique or even an entirely new framework and programming language. All I need is time to learn and trust that I will arrive to the level of competence required of me. I may not know everything now, but I will not stop learning. Even if I know everything I need to do my job today, I will continue to learn how to do my job tomorrow."

Simple and truthful, although the second answer relates more to me as a person.

2: "I am not a math person. I can do math, but my brain is wired for language. That is why I became a programmer: I can speak to the machine just as I can speak to a customer. By hiring me, you are hiring a liaison between the technical people, the non-technical people, and the technology itself. I can understand non-technical people's technical needs and communicate my technical solutions better than most programmers. I can work with people as well as I can work with machines, and that is why I am a very effective developer."

The second answer got me the job I have now.

Not a good time to introduce not's in my opinion. It might work (as it did for you), but it's high risk.

If the job requires a math person to sit and code and not talk to non-technical people, then I am the wrong person for that job and both parties are better off if they hire someone else.

Omitting the first part keeps the message and sounds cleaner to me, without risking the person thinking "not good at math? like basic logic?" (rather than the cal 3 you had in mind or whatever).

It's rarely beneficial to use up time highlighting anything you're bad at, rather than better emphasizing what you are good at.

https://biginterview.com/blog/2013/04/why-should-we-hire-you...

You can manage (and diffuse) the situation by replying with humor. Make an over-the-top statement with a big smile to say something without saying anything. Like “Because I can do everything you need, and I can do it better than all the other candidates!”. Do not talk about money and especially not about costs. Just keep it light. A dumb question warrants a dumb answer.

You MUST move on. It's an asenine question, the sign of a poor interviewer. And it's impossible to know for certain that your answer was the deciding factor why you did not get the job.

Suggest replying with a question-- "Are there any areas lacking in my background or skill sets that you are concerned about or possibly feel isn't a good match for your team?"

This helps foster more dialog-- probe for any perceived negatives and then address those concerns.

Everyday big companies screw-up recruiting, missing-out on otherwise very qualified, even brilliant talent. Here's a take on Googles process > https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-02/book-revi...

This is a great question to me as it provides so much opportunity. If you can't answer this with enthusiasm, then I think you should reflect on what makes you valuable. I promise that there is something...

Some might propose that it's advantageous to play the mind games and construct an answer tailored to the culture fit of the company. I question the wisdom of this: this is akin to lying on a dating site, where the truth, irrespective of its subtlety, will come out in a relationship sooner or later.

In my opinion, the point is to find a good employer-to-employee match, and you won't know what answer the interviewer is looking for -- so it's best to drop all pretenses and fall back to primal emotions: excitement, desire, etc. I want this. I want the challenge of working here. I think I'd be a great fit because <short but authentic personal anecdote>.

I don't think this is akin to a retail employee reluctantly feeling pressured to pledge their allegiance to the brand, but rather a plain assessment of why you felt to apply there. Perhaps they're looking for a little reassurance that they're not an interchangeable cog in your plan, just like you want to feel like you're valued as a person, not just the sum of all your skills.

One reason it's hard because the true answer is always: "because you believe that I will complete more work and therefore generate more profits than the other 8 people you interviewed, and because you like me more than them based on the 40 minute conversation we just had." That is not a valid answer in most interviews I can imagine taking place.

Another reason this question is hard is that questions which ask you to boast about yourself are always awkward to answer. I find it always comes off better to be humble in interviews, and this question seems like it's almost begging you to talk yourself up.

Given this, I would approach this question by ignoring it (more or less) and answering a different question: "Why do you want to work here?"

"This area genuinely interests me and I'm excited about this work."

"This is the work I want to be doing. I prefer the work that goes on here to the work that goes on in the 3 other places I interviewed at last week."

I think you can leave out the "...so therefore I will work very hard" bit, because that's a given. Convince them you actually want the job. If you succeed, that's a valid, though roundabout, way of giving them a reason to hire you.

Honest, to the point and not BS crap

Having candor and talking as though you were the interviewer can show empathy for their thought process while deliberately disconnecting you from the answer. This can kinda disarm the awkwardness of selling yourself so blatantly.

Example:

"If I were in your shoes - I would be looking for someone who would be the best fit for the team and can demonstrate X, Y, and Z skills [Note: great time to demonstrate understanding of what they're hiring for and pander towards your specific skill set. The real important thing here is knowing what X, Y, and Z should be]. Hopefully I have demonstrated that I fulfill those requirements through our interview, but certainly let me know if there are any areas that I can provide additional clarity. [In a sales interview, sometimes someone goes for a close here. Asks the interviewer if they have any objections about moving them forward to the next step. That's too aggressive in an engineering interview, but this might eek out an additional question or two. But in all likelihood, they'll just move right along]".

From there, the response should more or less write itself: "My experience/skills in X, Y, and Z are going to help you solve problems A, B, and C that you're having" or, for less senior applicants, "I'm very interested in learning more about the technologies/skills you need me to have to solve problems A, B, C and my past work in I, J, K shows that I can acquire those skills easily and will be effective in applying them to your problems."

[0] This includes ones that they may not even know they needed to have solved.

- investment: showing why/how you maximize their profits amongst other candidates

- relief: proving you will make their lives/jobs easier

- simplifying the selection process: providing a means by which the employer orders the candidates through their own descriptions of the job

- sanity-checking: giving bad candidates the opportunity to self-disqualify, or alternatively indicating a signal for the company to "re-think"

Stop. Hiring is sometimes stupidly arbitrary. Hirers are fallible and some of the best or most respected developers in the world have been rejected. It means nothing:

http://rejected.us/

What was your answer? You'd have to bomb this question pretty badly for it to sink an interview.

I'd guess that you didn't get the job for some other reason, which could be in your control or not. You could have had a poor technical showing that day. You might have been so awesome they thought you'd seen all the questions before. The interviewers could have been having a bad day. They might have had multiple candidates and had to pick one. They might have suddenly instituted a hiring freeze. You might have seemed like a poor cultural fit. They might have been racist. The hiring manager might have left the company suddenly and they decided to close the req. There are at least a hundred reasons you might not get a job and you generally have no visibility into the real reason.

Something along the lines of 'I love my craft/job and am very interested in the challenges your organizations has' is probably a safe bet.

I hate this interviewing question btw, really don't know why you would ask it unless you're interviewing for sales positions.

list things you can do for them that will make an impact

Additionally, I am reliable, flexible, work well with others and will work hard to make a difference here wherever I can."

You should follow the same thought process prior to the interview; what do you bring to the table for this job. Are you experienced in the field? Do you have high productivity compared to other people you've worked with? Are you really enthusiastic about the work? If it's a team based environment, do you have experience working in or even teams in this field?

That's how you answer that question.

1) interviewers spend all their time looking for any reason not to hire you, rather than looking for what value you can provide. Kind of odd for an industry with a supposed talent shortage. They'll make some claim about the cost of false positives, but it's nonsense, at least in America.

2) they expect you to be passionate about sitting in front of a computer all day (because, for some reason, it's not good enough to simply be competent and reliable) but during an interview they expect you to have sales skills and to sell yourself.

The first is simply additive, the second is multiplicative.

I apply for "vulnerability analyst" or "vulnerability security" kind of.. can't remember. sorry.

btw, it's for junior (because it under 5 years experiences).

My take is that you should be doing values elicitation throughout the interview (that is, asking questions to find out what they are looking for) and then you just use that question as a chance to pitch yourself as the ideal candidate based on their criteria.

Basically, they want to make sure you have the right skills as well as have the decency to be able to prepare correctly and not take things for granted or take anything too lightly.

I mean, if you can't answer a boilerplate question, hoe can they expect you to fulfill the occasional proforma task?

Companies should be willing to give you a fair shake if you made it as far as an interview. If you have to justify their decision to consider you during the interview process, how would they be on the actual job? My guess: not very pleasant.

- My XXX will help your company succeed.

- Your YYY will help me grow

- I believe in your ZZZ

XXX: skills, experience, etc. YYY: technology, project, product, etc. ZZZ: vision, culture, values.

It's not that they have to be false, but in the vast majority of all successful interviews ever where these things were asserted, some or all of them were. If they're not true and you're not willing to lie about them, it's typically not worth interviewing.

It wasn't in the bland HR generated job req but todays task is we're trying to talk to the MQTT server and ... anyway five minutes later to see if the candidate is listening the interviewer asks why you ... If the candidate responds with something indicating the candidate heard the interviewer five minutes ago talk about MQTT servers or libraries or whatever, then awesome, thats exactly what the interviewer expected. If the candidate rambles about their resume its because they were not paying attention and in the workplace its annoying to tell someone what to do and then have them go off on a totally separate tangent. If the candidate panics and goes lost in space, they were daydreaming about lunch or the TV show they watched last night and that is also annoying in a professional workplace during a professional conversation.

"Yo I heard you say in this interview you're working on X Y and Z right now and let me tell you all about how I can speed it up and lower risk by helping you out with X Y and Z."

Oh and don't surprise the interviewer. They read your resume and expect an answer along the lines of what they read. Or heard. Even if its true don't suddenly shout out Holy Cow thats exactly like a programming assignment I did in class or some random thing. Before they even asked they already guessed what your response will be and you want them all warm and fuzzy by restating what they expect.

You know take home projects? This question is like a take home project without the take home. You mention rabbitmq they freak out or go on a fizzbuzz tangent or talk about freebsd in general, not so good. If it were a take home assignment they'd fail or come back with a solution to a different problem, not so good. You mention rabbitmq and they respond rabbitmq ah now there's an attentive on task future employee whom if I HAD assigned a rabbitmq take home project would probably have returned with a solution to the rabbitmq problem as opposed to something else or nothing...

Edited to add, think of it like the conversation you probably have with your boss on a regular basis. Especially if the interviewer might be your new boss. Boss says yo I'm getting a lot of heat about bug #15133 and feature request #126699 and then you talk about the weather for ten minutes and the conversation closes with some sort of what you're doing today? and it better revolve around #15133 and #126699 and I totally have a plan and the skills to handle it, definitely not oh shit I type meta-x panic-mode, or I have no idea, or how about that TV show last night, or whatever.