[neilv]

It's interesting that most of these are bog-standard questions asked of candidates, simply turned around. If ChatGPT can do that, the similarity won't be lost on anyone.

Larger companies will start prepping interviewers what to answer, for any questions that aren't already covered in training.

It'll be a new ritual by companies that don't know how to interview, in the designated 5 minutes remaining after the interviewer clicks the stopwatch on the Leetcode hazing. The candidate can ask the standard questions to which no one should expect genuine answers, and the interviewer can recite the corporate-approved useless responses. And then the interviewer will literally check the boxes for which standard questions the candidate asked, and whether they asked that STAR format be used. (And someone who ruins an entire field, by defining psychotic interview rituals, and then turning around and selling candidate prep for those rituals, will then incorporate these checkboxes into the latest edition of the prep, guaranteeing that the ritual will be complete.)

I sometimes get meaningful, genuine answers to some questions about the company, I think partly because I tend to be candid, and maybe some people recognize and respect that. However, I think most people won't answer very candidly, if the candidate is reinforcing the mode by only doing what interview prep says. (For example, most people will realize that honestly answering what a company should improve upon, to any random person who walks in off the street, could get the interviewer fired. Why would they risk that.)

[llm_trw]

>It'll be a new ritual by companies that don't know how to interview, in the designated 5 minutes remaining after the interviewer clicks the stopwatch on the Leetcode hazing. The candidate can ask the standard questions to which no one should expect genuine answers, and the interviewer can recite the corporate-approved useless responses.

I laugh because I don't want to cry.

[noisy_boy]

Packaged and canned corporate speak already happens and will continue to happen. However, assuming you are meeting face to face, you can see their faces when they do it. Generally most people's bs-detector is good enough to catch such pretending and that is the point of the questions - not only what words are coming out of the interviewers mouth but whether those are believable based on the expression/body language etc. People overrate their ability to lie convincingly.

[neilv]

True. Though, when they give you a corporatespeak answer to an otherwise meaningful question, the only thing you've learned (if they're not giving additional cues, like you said) is that this particular interviewer gave you a corporatespeak answer, not why they did.

They're not necessarily trying to cover up anything, like telling you some unfavorable truth, but merely trying to act corporate.

So, it's evidence in support of the suspicion that this company is full of commonplace corporate BS, but it probably doesn't even indirectly answer the more specific information you were trying to get at.

[majikandy]

I can imagine that if we ever reach a point where the interviewers are prepped with the useless corporate answers to these reversed interview questions, it means we’ve done a great job in pushing to get the right information and gets right to the crux of their issues and possible red flags, one of which might even be a “corporate culture cover up stock answer”. Then surely just a follow up question asking “is that also you personal experience here?” And if you still get a corporate answer then you know for certain it is a red flag. Ultimately it sounds like these sort of questions could work well.