Why do interviewers ask what difference I can bring to their companies

Question

Why do interviewers ask:

What is it that you can bring to our organization to make a difference?

I recently applied for a Java developer's position using my resume. The resume had a list of all technologies with levels indicating whether I am an expert, middle-level or a novice user of those technologies.

I am quite perplexed at the thought of me being able to bring a difference to a Multi m/billion dollar company. I genuinely don't think that the requirements for a programmer as advertized in their website, can bring any difference to their immediate stock price either.

I have applied to a position advertized for a (run of the mill) Java developer and am willing to work as a Java developer who will code using whatever technology I am asked to code with and preferably against some documentation. What would an interviewer want to know with this question?

Answer 1

They're fishing for uniqueness and emotional buy-in [1].

If Candidate A says something generic, that's okay. If Candidate B says, "I believe developing this new piece of software will double the company's sales to high-end customers. [And here's why...]", all the sudden Candidate B looks a lot more interested and engaged, and he moves to the top of the list.

---

[1]If they can find something that makes you unique, they can just pick you as the candidate, and use that uniqueness to rationalize their decision to themselves and/or their manager.

Answer 2

Why do interviewers ask : 'What is it that you can bring to our organization to make a difference?'

This question is a standard "open-ended / big picture" question interviewers often ask.

Like 'Where do you see yourself in five years?' and 'Why should we hire you?', these questions are designed to get you to respond with more than just a yes/no answer, to talk about yourself, and to talk about your job and career expectations.

Interviewers would prefer that you don't give answers that boil down to 'I don't know.' or 'I probably can't make a difference.' Instead, they want you to talk about how you see your career progressing, where you want to go, and how it can help them. Even something along the lines of 'I bring an energy and ability to quickly learn new technologies that has helped my previous employers deliver products to market faster.' might be a good answer - particularly when you follow up with concrete examples of the same.

These questions can often feel awkward to answer at first. I usually suggest that you think about the question, write down answers until you find one that sounds good to you, and practice saying the answer with conviction.

Here are some more questions that might help you. Read through them, think about your answers, and practice. http://www.allthingsquality.com/2010/04/more-interview-questions.html

Answer 3

One of the criterion for all work positions is potential for "engagement", or predicting your future buy in, vision, passion for your work, etc. This is not a casual concept: Gallup, for instance, reports that:

Companies with an average of 9.3 engaged employees for every actively disengaged employee in 2010-2011 experienced 147% higher EPS [Earnings Per Share] compared with their competition in 2011-2012.

Companies with an average of 2.6 engaged employees for every actively disengaged employee, in contrast, experienced 2% lower EPS compared with their competition during that same time period.

So actually, if you aren't engaged with your work and think it is individually important in it's own right, you are a potential liability to the business.

The interviewer, in their undeniably imperfect way, is trying to divine the future and your potential engagement, motivation, etc. That's what they were looking for with the question - it was an invitation to try to convince them you care about the job, are confident in your ability, and feel you have something worthwhile to offer.

With the idea of "making a difference", they are trying to also divine your potential for POBs - positive organizational behaviors - which are in some cases positively correlated in research with lots of "good things" like being absent less, being more productive, job satisfaction, etc.

As for making a difference to such a large company, you are thinking too dramatically - if you have nothing to offer that would make a difference, then there would be no reason to hire you. If none of us made a difference, there'd be no reason to be alive at all - depressing, isn't it? But just because you don't think yourself the next Einstein doesn't mean you don't have plenty to offer, and none of us must become a peer of Nelson Mandela just to "make a difference". They don't expect you to revolutionize the company, just make a contribution - which would have been a better way to phrase the question, perhaps!

Also, technically you can always make a difference to even the largest company - you can always burn their HQ to the ground. They are trying to avoid that kind of employee as much - or often much more - than they are looking for a good employee. Every question is a way to get you out of being seen as a potential horror story, just as much as it's trying to see if you'd be a really good hire.

Again though, all of these questions are invitations to talk about your greatest skills, accomplishments, work ethics, etc. So if you get a lofty flowery question like this and you don't know how to answer it precisely, just correct it in your head to "So, tell me about your greatest workplace strengths...", and they'll often get the answer they were looking for anyway.

Answer 4

The interviewer is asking what is it about you that makes you the person we should choose for this out all the people we are interviewing. This is your chance to sell them on what it is about you that makes you a better choice for the job than anyone else.

Answer 5

I had the following experience, which might illustrate why you should respond in what ever way you feel.

I was invited to a group interview in which about 40 of us were seated in a video conference room where we watched a historical clip on an organization that had been around since the 1930s. Each of us was given a written questionnaire and each of us was asked to give a quick spiel on why we wanted to work for the organization and our personal interests.

Then we were invited to ask our own questions, and I had one, that involved the implementation of a networking technology that was being adopted in a number of big cities. In the context of this organization, it would have been 'leading edge'.

At the end of this about five or six people were invited to one on one's, while the rest of us sat around. Within ten minutes they had their candidate.

There were, largely speaking, two rather obvious factions in the group - the climbers and the coders. The climbers were in their suits and blouses, the coders in their jeans and sneakers. The one exception was someone that looked like they spent their life fixing old cars in their garage. This organization was in a rural area, was very laid back, and specifically disavowed being technologically aggressive. Guess who they hired?

Point being is that the organization may want a run of the mill java coder and the context of the question is to see if you're going to try to run rings around your boss or coworkers. If this is the kind of role you want you should say so.

However, some business units are short of inspiration and aggression. You would not be invited to work in one of those, because what they want is someone that is going to shake off the lethargy. There are some rather prominent disasters recently that could probably have used the services of troublemakers that asked jarring questions.

One might remember a largish company that replaced someone else's 'maps' program with their own, and it was discovered rather quickly that there were a lot of quality problems. If your role could expose the company to major embarrassments, they would rather have someone that will cry foul when the effort is proving to be careless.

Answer 6

Why should they hire you if you won't make a difference?

You're supposed to help them become more profitable; and perhaps also increase the quality of the code, help users become more efficient, help the team work better. If they're going to give you money, what are you going to provide to make that money a good investment? If you don't know the answer to that question, someone else who does plan on making a difference will be a better choice for them to hire.

They want to get the best value for the salary they pay. The question is asking what kind of value do you offer?