This article is pointing out that interviewing/recruiting is as much dominance play for the interviewers as it is testing of candidates. Doing interviews can be considered recognition of rank inside the company. Some probably consider this sanctioned "lording" an implicit reward, and thus will make sure they get they what they want. Some consider it a hazing ritual.
Noting how many comments here are of the form "this is what /I/ would accept" or "what /I/ usually want out of /them/".
And the point was specifically how interviewers insert their personal issues into the questions and make others dance.
This answer is insightful and matches my understanding.
The article demonstrates an interviewee skillfully maneuvering around their interviewers. It undermines the dominance display which, judging by the comment section, more than a few folks enjoy but also don't want to admit to enjoying.
I'll go a step further and say the desire for dominance in this scenario stems less from avarice and more from insecurity. A new face who who does their job too well, and knows things that the interviewer does not, is someone who can replace the interviewer.
Noting how many comments here are of the form "this is what /I/ would accept" or "what /I/ usually want out of /them/".
And the point was specifically how interviewers insert their personal issues into the questions and make others dance.