[bigred100]

I’m not sure. I probably wouldn’t do it but there’s something admirable about it. If the CEO is a reasonable adult he cares about hiring whoever will provide the best return on investor’s income instead of doing a dance about how everyone should feel lucky to work for him. If he fails to do that, he’s failing to do his job. Of course, if the OP actually has ego problems, then that’s a good reason to strongly consider not hiring them (possibly massive negative impact on team productivity from such people).

All the shittiest managers/administrators I’ve met spend a lot of time talking up their “opportunity” and putting down the candidate/employee. It’s just grade school level manipulation from emotionally stunted adults. But if OP was fishing for it to prove a point that’s immature.

[mcv]

You get a better return from people who want to work for you than from people who are "not that interested". If I was hiring and a candidate first submits shitty code, and then says he's not that interested, then I'm quite likely to lose interest too. It has to be a match on both sides.

Candidates shouldn't be groveling on their knees, and any hiring manager who expects that should be avoided at all cost, because they're selecting on willingness to be abused. But it shouldn't be the other way around either; hiring an asshole is not good for the company.