I've done a lot of interviews for work, and I make it very clear to the candidate that the questions they ask me won't be used to evaluate them and that they are purely for their benefit.
Candidates have just had a very stressful interview, I don't want them to have to worry about choosing to impress me versus getting the information they really seek. Obviously this doesn't apply if they ask questions that reveal massive red flags (like something utterly racist or sexist) but so far that's never happened in over 70+ interviews.
To emphasize the fact that questions are for the benefit of the interviewee, if I'm interviewing someone that's foreign and I happen to speak their language, after the interview is over I close the computer and switch to their language to make it clear that we are now having a conversation and they can relax and be informal.
I suspect from your comment that you didn't go through and submit the form on the page. It doesn't give you questions to ask to make yourself look good, but gives you questions to ask to get the "real" answers to things that are important to you.
For example, you can't just ask your interviewer "how's the work-life balance here?" for the same reason as your interviewer isn't going to ask you "do you have a good work ethic?" -- because there's an obviously "right" answer so you're not going to get much useful information out of it. If you select that you're interested in work-life balance, this application suggests you ask something along the lines of "How responsive are people to emails/Slack over the weekends and after 6pm?" and provides a brief explanation of why you might ask that question and how it relates to your actual interest. IMO it's a great basis for a question to ask because it doesn't have an obviously "right" answer, though personally I would tweak it somewhat.
Overall this application seems very thoughtfully put together and I am impressed.
On the other hand, I find questions such as "how responsive are people to emails/Slack over the weekends and after 6pm?" utterly loathsome.
It is immediately obvious that the question is just a veiled attempt at asking about the work-life balance.
From the perspective of both the interviewee and the interviewer, I much rather prefer the more straightforward question "how's the work life balance here?", with the expectation that the interviewer is honest enough to engage in an healthy, open discussion on the topic.
"Loathsome", really? It may be obvious to you, but it demands a level of specificity that the interviewer is much less likely to lie about. Every company will tell you that they have a good work life balance because that's a completely nebulous claim. If you ask about after-hours communication they're more likely to give you an accurate answer.
It's like if I ask you "do you think you're a good person" where you have a financial incentive to justify why you're a good person and a disincentive to just why you aren't. You're going to emphasize the good points and neglect the bad points to make yourself look the best. Company recruiters are evaluated on equivalent metrics (at least indirectly) so of course they'll give you the sunshine-and-rainbows view of the business. The more direct your question, the more egregious any lie becomes, so the more likely you are to hear the truth.
I worked at a company known for over-working employees (mostly technical, non-devs, though) where the HR recruiters would always go on and on about only ever having to work 45 hours a week max during release pushes... then in orientation the (9-10 figures net worth) CEO told you that they "didn't believe in a work-life balance", and they favored a "work-life integration" instead. Those are obviously complete opposites, and a more direct question to the recruiters could have revealed that discrepancy. In fact that disgusting lie of omission turned me off from the company so much that I found a job elsewhere pretty soon thereafter.
The goal as an interviewer is not to trigger the "HR alarms" that require you to lie or spread the truth thin. If you ask a quantifiable question like "how often do people work over 40 hours?" you're more likely to get a truly revealing answer.
Interesting, why do you loathe that question? I don't view it as a veiled attempt to get info or a way to trick the interviewer.
To me, it's a specific way to measure work life balance. Most HR departments love to preach work life balance, but if the entire team is expected to be responsive during off hours then you have a problem. When asked "how's your work life balance?" it's easy to answer "good" without much reflection. Asking specifics helps get to the reality quicker and is more likely to get specific details.
Erm, i would wager a question like that is intentionally transparent. and it is not as if these questions have to be said without elaboration. in my opinion it can be helpful to start conversations on subjective topics with an example, to suggest what one is looking for (or looking to avoid), or otherwise provide context on what may violate the work life balance for the particular individual.
For less experienced interviewees it may be vital to provide an example or boundary. Maybe the interviewee doesn't know how to respond to a reply of, "Yes, we have good work life balance." Even if the interviewee asked for elaboration on why it's good, that can give a perfect stage for the interviewer to say what wants to be heard instead of providing specific examples (i don't mean to say this is always malicious behavior, though sadly I'm sure that happens too).
I generally don't get too many questions worth putting on interview feedback -- they can ask questions to get the information they need to make a decision.
However I make note of it for two cases. A) when they seem to be trying to ask the 'right questions; especially when they dominate the direction of the interview and we don't have enough time for my technical question. B) when they're asking questions that seem to indicate a preference for process that isn't a good fit for what we do: it doesn't affect my decision, but it may affect theirs, so I'll want to check that it came up with other interviewers and ensure that it's something the candidate is aware of if we give them an offer. Testing and deployment can be a big part of a job, and if you have strong opinions, you may not want to work somewhere that does things 'wrong'
Candidates have just had a very stressful interview, I don't want them to have to worry about choosing to impress me versus getting the information they really seek. Obviously this doesn't apply if they ask questions that reveal massive red flags (like something utterly racist or sexist) but so far that's never happened in over 70+ interviews.
To emphasize the fact that questions are for the benefit of the interviewee, if I'm interviewing someone that's foreign and I happen to speak their language, after the interview is over I close the computer and switch to their language to make it clear that we are now having a conversation and they can relax and be informal.