I disagree because most people are applying for everything. So many people are putting in dozens of applications a day. "What resonated with you" is the fact that they're hiring at all. You can learn to love a job and find satisfaction in the work even if the company didn't "resonate" with you.

[–] Necroscope0@lemm.ee 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Right? What resonated? Well it mostly the need to not starve to death and have a roof over my head. What about you?

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

Sure. I wouldn't disqualify someone for being ambivalent towards what we're working on, but the person who seems interested is gonna be better to work with.

Likewise when looking for a place to work, if the tangibles are equivalent I'll prefer the place with better intangibles.

I'm not in HR or management, so I don't care about cost effectiveness or productivity beyond "not screwing me over". From that perspective, it's generally nicer to work with someone who finds it interesting than with someone who doesn't.

There's no point asking "why do you want to work here", because the answer is obviously a combination of money and benefits, and how food and healthcare keeps you from being dead.
I can't fault an interviewer who's clearly trying not to ask the obvious question and instead actually ask how the candidate feels about the work instead of disqualifying them for not volunteering the right answer.

It's not unreasonable for an employer to ask a candidate how they feel about the work anymore than it's unreasonable for the candidate to ask about the working environment.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Researchable before going there

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago

So is my resume but they don't read it before the interview.