Why _Am_ I Interested in Your Company?(jjmojojjmojo.github.io)
jjmojojjmojo.github.io
Why _Am_ I Interested in Your Company?
https://jjmojojjmojo.github.io/why-am-i-interested-in-your-company.html
8 comments
From a hiring side, he seems to be missing context that any of those answers are fine, since they show he at least read the job description. The point is probably show you have the barest clue what job you are applying for, since a surprising number of applicants will say something nonsense like “I want to work on embedded because I’m great at JavaScript and certified with Microsoft Word” and then not actually be able to name a difference between running on a microcontroller and AWS. I’d want to know if you can learn the work, but also that you won’t flee for greener pastures and more interesting problems after investing in training, once you do learn what the tasks are
Many times I have seen people's answers to this question be a factor in which projects they are targeted for by the way. Not every question is necessarily a 'filter' per se. That said I think in truth a lot of this genre of questions fulfill a similar kind of purpose to the 'waiter rule' of dating. Anybody who can't spin together 30s of polite smalltalk about how they're interested in the role to get a job may be very difficult to work with.
Im on the hiring side, and I can tell you that these questions are there to serve one purpose only - to give the candidate a chance to stand out.
We were getting some 30-40 applications a day when we were at peak search, and when you get so many, after a few weeks, you start looking for anomalies, show me some glint of greatness, a spark of wit, evidence of original thought, something to show youre not just pasting slop or ticking boxes.
The candidate on the other side of this might say "but theres so many applications to do, I cant do that for every one" and maybe thats the crux, the candidate who puts in the extra effort to stand out will win, and thats the purpose of these questions.
We were getting some 30-40 applications a day when we were at peak search, and when you get so many, after a few weeks, you start looking for anomalies, show me some glint of greatness, a spark of wit, evidence of original thought, something to show youre not just pasting slop or ticking boxes.
The candidate on the other side of this might say "but theres so many applications to do, I cant do that for every one" and maybe thats the crux, the candidate who puts in the extra effort to stand out will win, and thats the purpose of these questions.
Author here (hi!).
This is a big part of what I was saying in the post, people with your perspective want to put the responsibility for your job onto applicants. I have to perform for you. I have to impress you. And what you're asking me to do actually boils down to exactly "ticking boxes". It's really interesting you'd use that phrase.
I didn't get into this in the post, because I had other points to make, but dude, when I'm applying for a job, I don't even know who you are. It's a total crap shoot who's desk my application will land on, even if I can figure out who the hiring manager or technical lead is. I barely know what your company actually does, and have absolutely zero idea what would make me "stand out" or be an "anomaly" to you. All I have to go on is the job posting, company marketing and cyberstalking.
So I spend a couple hours trying to wrap my head around what would make me stand out for this specific combination of company, people, and posting, and I'm rarely closer to an honest answer than I was before I started. I can't get good signals on culture, tech, specific problems that need to be solved or anything useful to me that would make me excited about the position. I put in the effort, and anything I write will still be fluff that distills down to "I'm a good fit for the requirements of your position" (plus "my research didn't raise too many red flags", but that's implied).
And from my experience (I've been in the industry since 1999 and it's the same today as it ever was), the chances of that investment paying off for either of us are basically zero. You put in 30 seconds looking for "glints" in my application, I put in hours doing research. The end result is missing a potentially great match. The impact, however is that I have to keep trying and pray I can pay my mortgage next month, you can just whine to leadership about how tough hiring is and keep coasting, looking for people who are "not just pasting slop". There's an imbalance in ROI here and you need to acknowledge it.
I made a much broader point in my post, which seems to be getting lost. I get it, you're going through so many answers to "why do I want to work for XXX" looking for "evidence of original thought". It's so difficult, you don't have time to even bother with anyone that matches the posting, let alone reach out to your network or grow it by actually connecting with people (which will yield better results, per the reports I cited, and what you'll end up doing anyway, because of the realities of how people get hired).
That's what I urged people in a hiring position to do: connect with people. Can you imagine if you just had a basic resume screen and then focused your effort on making real-life connections with matches to grow your professional network, then hired from that? I would think it'd be a lot easier, in terms of cognitive load, than reading a bunch of nonsense answers looking for that "spark of wit". Like I said, it will yield higher returns. So why not do that? (genuine question)
Anyway, I was serious about connecting with you over email and sending you my resume, and I appreciate your perspective. I am very thankful that you took the time to read my post.
"the candidate who puts in the extra effort to stand out will win, and thats the purpose of these questions"
This is a big part of what I was saying in the post, people with your perspective want to put the responsibility for your job onto applicants. I have to perform for you. I have to impress you. And what you're asking me to do actually boils down to exactly "ticking boxes". It's really interesting you'd use that phrase.
I didn't get into this in the post, because I had other points to make, but dude, when I'm applying for a job, I don't even know who you are. It's a total crap shoot who's desk my application will land on, even if I can figure out who the hiring manager or technical lead is. I barely know what your company actually does, and have absolutely zero idea what would make me "stand out" or be an "anomaly" to you. All I have to go on is the job posting, company marketing and cyberstalking.
So I spend a couple hours trying to wrap my head around what would make me stand out for this specific combination of company, people, and posting, and I'm rarely closer to an honest answer than I was before I started. I can't get good signals on culture, tech, specific problems that need to be solved or anything useful to me that would make me excited about the position. I put in the effort, and anything I write will still be fluff that distills down to "I'm a good fit for the requirements of your position" (plus "my research didn't raise too many red flags", but that's implied).
And from my experience (I've been in the industry since 1999 and it's the same today as it ever was), the chances of that investment paying off for either of us are basically zero. You put in 30 seconds looking for "glints" in my application, I put in hours doing research. The end result is missing a potentially great match. The impact, however is that I have to keep trying and pray I can pay my mortgage next month, you can just whine to leadership about how tough hiring is and keep coasting, looking for people who are "not just pasting slop". There's an imbalance in ROI here and you need to acknowledge it.
I made a much broader point in my post, which seems to be getting lost. I get it, you're going through so many answers to "why do I want to work for XXX" looking for "evidence of original thought". It's so difficult, you don't have time to even bother with anyone that matches the posting, let alone reach out to your network or grow it by actually connecting with people (which will yield better results, per the reports I cited, and what you'll end up doing anyway, because of the realities of how people get hired).
That's what I urged people in a hiring position to do: connect with people. Can you imagine if you just had a basic resume screen and then focused your effort on making real-life connections with matches to grow your professional network, then hired from that? I would think it'd be a lot easier, in terms of cognitive load, than reading a bunch of nonsense answers looking for that "spark of wit". Like I said, it will yield higher returns. So why not do that? (genuine question)
Anyway, I was serious about connecting with you over email and sending you my resume, and I appreciate your perspective. I am very thankful that you took the time to read my post.
This is a big part of what I was saying in the post, people with your perspective want to put the responsibility for your job onto applicants. I have to perform for you. I have to impress you.
But one thing I never did was put up arbitrary barriers. Yet, "top companies" (sorry bro, your pre-seed startup might be a great idea, but it's not a top anything yet) want a show of meaningless effort as a proof of value. And job seekers will comply because we need employment to access capital, or more specifically, food, shelter, health care and social mobility. It's pretty bleak.
And then the Author weirdly dismisses startups that are looking for talents. Startups that have no reputation, no stability, focused projects, small teams and less money. But they have much less "arbitrary" barriers. Here you go, you have your solution right there in front of you, in your text. Working at a startup or any small company will give you "food, shelter, health care and social mobility". But that's not what you really want. You don't really know why your interested in that big company instead of smaller ones. That question wasn't arbitrary after all.
You can't have a cake and eat it too.
"the author" here (hi!)
I think you're making a lot of assumptions, maybe projecting a bit here? I didn't mention "money, reputation, office politics, big scale of projects, nice office, good networking and stability", or anything about what I was interested in. Not sure where all that's coming from.
I've actually been focused almost exclusively on startups, especially in the early stages. The last company I worked at was just me and the co-founders. This is actually where I thrive: we're growing, we're pivoting, we're accommodating a big customer, we're orienting toward an acquisition, and we need to get our stuff in order. I am the one who's going to make the hard calls, whip the processes into shape, generally get the product in order to facilitate the next steps, learn everything I can to make it all work on the fly. I live in the trenches, I wear all the hats, I do all the dirty work, and I love it. Watching a constantly failing application transform into a turnkey operation is so satisfying. And then it's on to the next challenge. I appreciate stability but I'm willing to sacrifice it for interesting problems and a big impact.
Anyway, I get the same gate checks from startups, even tiny ones, and sometimes they're even more invasive and seem to want even more excitement from an applicant. They're placing a form in front of me instead of seeking me out, and the ATS systems and platforms are making me disappear. I'm spending so much time trying to craft the right kind of response and so little time interviewing. It sucks. The broader point of my post was urging people hiring to be proactive about that task and reach out to applicants instead of pushing the responsibility off onto platforms.
You're also misinterpreting the passage you're directly quoting, which is not something I've seen, I think, ever.
I didn't say a company, any company, "will give you 'food shelter, health care and social mobility". I said "we need employment to access capital, or more specifically, food, shelter, health care and social mobility". And I said it was bleak, which you captured, but didn't see, I guess?
I also framed that whole section with "A cynic may posit...". It's a cynical view.
I then followed that with:
Anyway, none of this really matters, I have this thing about fixing incongruency when I see it.
I'm psyched you took the time to read what I wrote. I honestly do appreciate that. If the straw man you were replying to existed in the context of this conversation, I do think you're making some valid points. Thank you.
I think you're making a lot of assumptions, maybe projecting a bit here? I didn't mention "money, reputation, office politics, big scale of projects, nice office, good networking and stability", or anything about what I was interested in. Not sure where all that's coming from.
I've actually been focused almost exclusively on startups, especially in the early stages. The last company I worked at was just me and the co-founders. This is actually where I thrive: we're growing, we're pivoting, we're accommodating a big customer, we're orienting toward an acquisition, and we need to get our stuff in order. I am the one who's going to make the hard calls, whip the processes into shape, generally get the product in order to facilitate the next steps, learn everything I can to make it all work on the fly. I live in the trenches, I wear all the hats, I do all the dirty work, and I love it. Watching a constantly failing application transform into a turnkey operation is so satisfying. And then it's on to the next challenge. I appreciate stability but I'm willing to sacrifice it for interesting problems and a big impact.
Anyway, I get the same gate checks from startups, even tiny ones, and sometimes they're even more invasive and seem to want even more excitement from an applicant. They're placing a form in front of me instead of seeking me out, and the ATS systems and platforms are making me disappear. I'm spending so much time trying to craft the right kind of response and so little time interviewing. It sucks. The broader point of my post was urging people hiring to be proactive about that task and reach out to applicants instead of pushing the responsibility off onto platforms.
You're also misinterpreting the passage you're directly quoting, which is not something I've seen, I think, ever.
I didn't say a company, any company, "will give you 'food shelter, health care and social mobility". I said "we need employment to access capital, or more specifically, food, shelter, health care and social mobility". And I said it was bleak, which you captured, but didn't see, I guess?
"But that's not what you really want"
I also framed that whole section with "A cynic may posit...". It's a cynical view.
I then followed that with:
"Now, I'm not a cynic. While my overall worldview is deeply pragmatic, when it comes to the toil of labor, I'm uncharacteristically optimistic."
"You can't have a cake and eat it too."
Anyway, none of this really matters, I have this thing about fixing incongruency when I see it.
I'm psyched you took the time to read what I wrote. I honestly do appreciate that. If the straw man you were replying to existed in the context of this conversation, I do think you're making some valid points. Thank you.
Great thank you ! I can only react to the text I am reading and yes I also read the text below nonetheless. In front of uncertainty humans fill the holes, and all the people who have a similar discourse than you could be good templates to fill the information missing :)
> The broader point of my post was urging people hiring to be proactive about that task and reach out to applicants instead of pushing the responsibility off onto platforms
Good !
> The broader point of my post was urging people hiring to be proactive about that task and reach out to applicants instead of pushing the responsibility off onto platforms
Good !