That’s one way to frame it. The other would be the candidate being able to understand that the “apart from money” part is implied in the question and the answer given the social context. This makes the money answer go from straightforward and honest to blunt and cringeworthy.
Based on the answers in this thread it seems like there's a large chunk of people for whom the "apart from money" is not implied. And I think that's what TFA is in support of any way. Neurotypical people might understand it like that, but a large chunk of developers might not be neurotypical and don't feel like, or don't have the capacity for expending energy into finding a socially acceptable answer.
That's exactly the social skills the interview is screening for. Determining if someone can handle relatively simple questions, of you if the employee will struggle.
Couldn't you get the same (or better) insight into their social skills by engaging them in a conversation about something more relevant to the actual job, such as the candidate's experiences with some technology that would be used in this job?
As a bonus, that conversation would probably be more likely to make a desirable job candidate have good feelings about you, and also give them information about what it would be like to work for you. A one-sided interrogation like "why do you want to work here" is less likely to lead to a mutually informative conversation. (Your company is also being evaluated by them; if they're someone you really want, they'll have a choice of working elsewhere. You'll need to sell your company to them.)
To be honest, Im pretty surprised that people see it as so much less relevant or informative. When I interview and have been interviewed, it is usually one of the most important topics.
For some reason, people seem to have a default hostile reaction. If you want a mutually informative conversation, it is a fantastic opening to have exactly that.
Candidates are allowed take an active role in discussion, and those that do are massively rewarded by the hiring process. Failure to engage with questions seems like refusing to meet an interviewer half way, or do literally any of the conversational work to get want they want.
IT is taking a passive conversational position devoid of agency.
I have had hour long conversations learning about how the company operates in the context of what I want staring from this same premise.
I dont want to work with employees who dont understand simple questions any more than I want to work with people who cant program.
There might be some code factory situations where it might not matter, but everywhere I worked being able to understand and communicate is an important part of the job. Employees who don't understand a question, dont see it as personal issue, and then resent the counterparty are the worst kind of coworkers.
[edit]
>Also, what will the developer struggle with if they're not able to come up with a convenient response to "why do you want to work for us?".
I with this kind of hostile literalism I would worry about having miscommunications along the time "you asked if I could finish the task by tomorrow, not if I will do the task by tomorrow".
PS it really isnt a hard question to answer without lying or BS, and I think the fact that some people struggle with it speaks volumes.
Q: "why do you want to work for us?
A: "First off, I am looking for to grow my career and compensation progression and think [Corp] is a place where I can do that. Beyond that, I think this role would be a good fit for both of us because specialize in XYZ relevant skills.
Upon reflection, I wonder if the problem is some people cant tell the difference between BS answering a question that isnt their own.
But in many cases, that answer would be BS. Lots of people have been laid off from their jobs, and would be happy with any job in their field that allows them to feed their family and pay their rent. Their primary objective might not be to grow their career or compensation, just to quickly find a job that pays enough and doesn't suck too much. And if their skills didn't match the ones you needed, they would have never progressed to the point of getting an interview with you, so there's really nothing new to be learned from that answer.
Sure, the answer might be different for different circumstances, but it isnt really a hard question. As I stated elsewhere, I think the assumption is that a decent candidate should be able to come up with at least one thing they like about a company or look forward to without lying when given a completely blank slate to work with. If you are seeking stability, that can be part of an answer too.
> And if their skills didn't match the ones you needed, they would have never progressed to the point of getting an interview with you, so there's really nothing new to be learned from that answer.
I think this sentiment is part of the challenge. It isn't just a question of skills, but a personal question of motivation and compatibility, and somehow that is being lost. All I'm seeing is that a potential employee that either doesn't understand my question or thinks their time is too valuable to answer it.
Depends on the culture and other circumstances. In certain cases, replying with "I need the money" would result in a few chuckles, but overall a very positive response.
