My final retort is towards the general trend of putting in a sales slant to such "question-answers" (fourth q here). Why can't we ever have so-called "proper" answers for interviews relating to accounting recruitments? What does the guy say ... "well, I managed the cash-flow of my employer by paying the small-scale suppliers after 180 days, I just did not care if they had a cash problem and had to shut down, and put a whole lot of people and their families in real trouble; and yes, I got four months' bonus for my superlative skills". Clap, everybody.
Responses so far are mostly in the "wow, very nice" category. I beg to differ a bit. For example, ref the first q, why should it ALWAYS be necessary to work for a bigger company? Suppose a young guy (that's your audience I reckon) is a small fry in a Fortune 5. If s/he wants to switch to a small pond (with potential) with a bigger role, how does the first q address that?!! So again, there are turnaround experts (senior level position) who have lifted up sinking organisations ... many have come from huge organisations.
Then again, why this silly mindset about candidates who express desire for money as reason for change? A guy who's a thorough pro would deliver as long as s/he is with the organisation. Most HRD people need to break free of their own baggaged thinking. It's quite ironic that the company doesn't mind generating more money for stakeholders, but looks negatively on the person who says so in the match-making stage. Also, what if the smart candidate gets through the interview with Miss-Universe like rehearsed soundbytes, and then changes from sheep's clothing to the wolf's after coming on board? That's ok?
