Responding to "Why are you the best person for this job" type questions

Question

Note: In somewhat the same vein as this question.

I recently landed a new job, but I was asked during the interview "Why do you think you're the best person for the job?" and they mentioned that this was basically my opportunity to sell myself. Now, I understand that what they're basically looking for in my response is me tying together my skills and experience to the requirements listed for the position.

However, I felt a bit uncomfortable declaring that I was indeed the absolute best person for the job, and prefaced my answer somewhat like so: "Well, since I am unable to compare myself to the other candidates I do not know for certain if I am the best person for the job - only you can determine this I imagine, but the reasons I feel I am at least a suitable candidate are.." and went on to detail why I was a good fit for the position.

The interviewer seemed a bit taken aback by my answer, but nevertheless hired me. I am not sure if their reaction was a positive or a negative one (that was offset by the rest of what seems to have been a good interview) and I'm wondering:

Was I right in my concern to add a preface to my answer, or should I have excluded it?

I should add that I've answered similarly before to such questions, but this was the first time I noted a visible reaction and made me wonder if I was perhaps taking the question too literally or something.

Answer 1

The interviewer was taken aback because he had not thought about the implication of his question: he was asking you to do HIS job, which is to evaluate the candidates, but without the information available to him - you have no way of evaluating the candidates because you have no data on them.

I view this question as a lazy and stupid question: it is lazy because he is asking you to do his job and it is stupid because comparisons without a fact base are stupid. Having said that, the question "What do you bring to the table?" is a more than fair question to ask. You have no way of knowing that you are the best person for the job, but you sure should know what you bring to the table.

What you did was pivot the unanswerable question "why are you the best person for the position?" to the eminently answerable question "what do you bring to the table?" In my opinion, the pivot was the right, smart and fair thing to do - it is a fair thing to do because you were fair to the other candidates and you can look at yourself in the mirror this morning as someone who competed and won without denigrating and casting aspersions on the other candidates. I respect that and I applaud the initiative you showed in refusing to play along. Under "normal" circumstances, how I go about winning and what I do to win is just as important to me as winning.

I'll note that what people mean to ask is sometimes different from what they actually ask, and there is the possibility that I have been jaundiced and unfair in ascribing impure and sinister motives to people who ask this question.

Memo to self: if I don't like a question as phrased, it is more constructive to answer the question by addressing the spirit and intent behind the question than to knock the asker flat on his back for asking the question. After all, we all make mistakes and acting with a bit of compassion and cutting some slack when the other person makes a mistake - that should be no skin off our noses.

Answer 2

You made a correct statement. As an interviewee, you have no idea who the other candidates are and therefore you couldn't possibly know if you are the best person for the job.

I think the interviewer was taken aback because he had probably never heard a candidate start off their answer to that particular question like that. There is probably a lot of people out there who try to inflate their skills and abilities during interviews. The honesty and modesty that you exhibited is not the norm, especially for a question like that where you have to sell yourself.

Since you got the job, your preface obviously didn't hurt. I think it could have been a positive - the interviewer may have appreciated your honesty. It's not always easy for interviewers to tell if a candidate is being honest.

Answer 3

I think you surprised the interviewer because you corrected them, in a passive-aggressive way. And also because they probably didn't think that what they'd asked was effectively "unanswerable" by you - they were just using the sentence to ask "what is good about you".

Your preface is neat, and cute, and the fact that you got the job implies to me that you're an engineer, and not, say, in sales or marketing or in the "business" side, where such a cute, neat answer is considered stupid.

The worst - to me - portion of your preface is the only you can determine this I imagine part, which is remarkably passive aggressive. Don't ever be "imagining" what the guy on the other side is thinking, it's condescending. Maybe you're even in the right, as some might argue you were - but being condescending is never the answer, especially in a job interview.

You're not trying to prove you're smarter than the interviewer - that might go down well sometimes (more so if you're an engineer) - but generally it won't go down well.

I would suggest you leave out the "cute" in interviews, it's too risky. It might get you hired, but as an engineer, knowing your skill set is much more likely to get you hired. More likely, the "cute" is just going to give a reason to not hire you (condescending, doesn't understand social norms, whatever), which you don't want.

Going "meta" on the question is very rarely going to work, they're asking the question for a reason (ie what is good about you), not to see if you're a meta-thinker.

Answer 4

The interviewer was probably taken aback because instead of considering the context of the question("we are here, together, to see if you are a good fit for the job and questions asked here are to determine that") you went for the general answer.

Questions like this aren't because the interviewer wants you to do his or her job(which is a fairly ridiculous assertion) or because they are lazy or bad at interviewing. Questions like these are prompts for your 'elevator' speech that should show two things:

a) You've done some research about the job and can articulate how you and this position would fit into the bigger picture.

b) A chance for you to show off a little and explain why exactly you think you are awesome or skilled.

In less formal companies an interviewer might ask - "What makes you awesome?" or "What is something that you've done that is exciting or impressive?" One of my favorite questions to ask is "What is the coolest/most interesting thing on your resume, the thing that makes you go 'Why hasn't she asked me about this yet?!?'" Interviewers ask questions like these in order to give you an opportunity to shine, to really show your passion(and knowledge) about projects you've worked on.

It's possible that, your initial caveat aside, your answer showed this knowledge and passion. It's possible that even with a weak answer to this question your interview and credentials were otherwise very strong. It's possible that you were the only applicant. It's possible that the interviewer dislikes the question nearly as much as some of the other answerers here on The Workplace... There are a lot of reasons that a person is chosen for a position and it would be hard to pin much on this particular answer.

Personally I think you would benefit from not adding the caveat. If you don't think you're a great fit for a job why would you be applying for it? Sure Batman could swing in and be like "I'm Batman" and he would probably be amazing at the job BUT you don't know(as you mentioned) and there's almost no benefit to downplaying your strengths and awesomeness in answering that question.

Answer 5

Was I right in my concern to add a preface to my answer, or should I have excluded it?

No, you weren't. This is a very typical interview question. It is understood that you and everyone else asked this question doesn't know the other candidates unless you all work together and are wanting some sort of promotion.

Unfortunately, interviewing is a bit of a game. Candidates are suppose to know how to play the game to a certain extent and should prepare themselves to answer the basic questions: Tell me about yourself. Why should you get the job? What salary do you expect? There are do's and don'ts like the first thing discussed isn't salary.

I'm not saying this is a good question. I'm not justifying the way the question was asked. Would it really make a difference if they asked, "What makes you qualified?" instead of why you're the best. You can't take things so literally when it is common knowledge what they really intended (I'll be "back in a minute" does not mean 60 seconds.)

Just play the game for now. Hopefully, everyone will get better at interviewing, but until then, don't feel you have to fight every windmill.