During an interview both sides should be asking questions in an attempt to explore whether the position is a good fit for the prospective employee. If as an interviewee I'm free to ask any question I want I will get to the questions that help me explore the nature of the company & position. That's the whole point of the interview process
Asking me to prioritize my decision making process into 3-5 neat little bullet points ranges from annoying and insulting. In asking the question the interviewer sounds like this:
Interviewer: "I'm assuming you haven't thought through your requirements for being an employee of my company. I could engage you in conversation like a normal human being to find out what you want. But I'm too lazy for that. Please summarize what you want in a convenient format that I can easily understand."
Interviewee: "This guy doesn't like to think. He values simple answers over process & conversation. I might have one 'bullet point' that requires a dozen questions to figure out. I might have a dozen bullet points that could be answered with two questions. Instead of talking to me he wants me to tell him what I want to hear. I'm outta here!"
If they ask for your input and then move on to the next question, absolutely. But at that point you're blaming the tool and not the user. The conclusion to draw is the interviewer is lazy / doesn't know what they're doing if they ask a question like that and move right on without inviting 2-way discussion over it.
The article clearly intends this to be a jumping off point to talk about what you're looking for in an employer and work environment in more detail. And it gets the ball rolling a little faster rather than just saying, "talk about what you're looking for in an employer and work environment in more detail".
Heaven forbid you, as potential employee, should summarize what you want in a convenient format! That would be communication, instead of sparring, or gamesmanship.
My point wasn't to encourage obfuscation or one-up-man-ship but to encourage communication. My point is to stand against formulaic questions that tell neither party anything of value.
Asking me to prioritize my decision making process into 3-5 neat little bullet points ranges from annoying and insulting. In asking the question the interviewer sounds like this:
Interviewer: "I'm assuming you haven't thought through your requirements for being an employee of my company. I could engage you in conversation like a normal human being to find out what you want. But I'm too lazy for that. Please summarize what you want in a convenient format that I can easily understand."
Interviewee: "This guy doesn't like to think. He values simple answers over process & conversation. I might have one 'bullet point' that requires a dozen questions to figure out. I might have a dozen bullet points that could be answered with two questions. Instead of talking to me he wants me to tell him what I want to hear. I'm outta here!"
.... see?