When you face the question "Why you and not someone else?" in an interview, the recruiter is not trying to trap you: they want to check that you have understood the needs of the role and that you can meet them better than a generic profile. Answer by connecting two or three of your concrete strengths to the specific challenges of the job, backed by a verifiable result. In Switzerland, stay factual and modest: reliability and a sense of proportion are valued, not self-promotion. Avoid running down the other candidates, whom you do not know.
"Why you and not someone else?" Few questions throw people off as much. It often comes at the end of the interview, just as you let your guard down, and it gives the impression that you have to compare yourself to invisible rivals. Many candidates then fall back on generalities ("I'm motivated," "I'm a good fit") that convince no one.
Yet this question is actually a good sign. If the recruiter asks it, it is usually because your profile has caught their interest and they are looking to reinforce their choice. Let's look at what they really expect, how to build a solid answer, and how to adapt it to Swiss codes without slipping into arrogance.
What is the recruiter really after with this question?
Contrary to appearances, the recruiter is not asking you to measure yourself against the other candidates. They are not expecting you to say "I'm better than the others." They want to check three specific things.
First, your understanding of the role: have you grasped the real challenges, beyond the job title in the ad? Next, your specific motivation: why is this role, in this company, an opportunity for you and not just "one more job"? Finally, your added value: what do you concretely bring that the role calls for?
In other words, the question tests your ability to connect who you are with what the company needs. A generic answer fails on this point, because it could be spoken by anyone about any role.
| What the recruiter wants to hear | What they dread |
|---|---|
| A clear link between your strengths and the needs of the role | Catch-all qualities with no proof |
| A motivation specific to this company | "I need a job" or an interchangeable pitch |
| Concrete results, quantified if possible | Unverifiable claims ("I'm thorough") |
| Measure and sincerity | Running down other candidates or overconfidence |
How do you build a solid answer?
A good answer cannot be fully improvised, but it should not be recited either. The logic has three steps: what the role requires, what you bring, and the proof that you already bring it.
- Restate the need of the role. Show that you have understood what matters to the company: a growth challenge, a team to structure, a specific technical skill. This anchors your answer in reality.
- Connect two or three of your strengths to that need. Not ten. Choose the ones that fit the role best. When technical skills are equal between candidates, it is often interpersonal qualities and concrete experience that make the difference.
- Provide proof. A result, an achievement, a lived situation. This is what turns a claim into an argument.
For the proof, the STAR method is a useful guide: you describe the Situation, the Task to accomplish, the Action you took, and the Result you achieved. It structures what you say and avoids vagueness. Aim for a short answer, around a minute and a half to two minutes, not a monologue.
| STAR step | Question to ask yourself | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Situation | What was the context? | "My team was facing recurring delivery delays." |
| Task | What was your role? | "I was responsible for making the schedule reliable." |
| Action | What did you do? | "I set up weekly tracking and reviewed priorities." |
| Result | What did it produce? | "Delays dropped and clients were delivered on time." |
This framework keeps you out of the abstract. The recruiter remembers a fact, not a list of adjectives.
What does a good sample answer look like?
Take a project manager role. A weak answer sounds like this: "You should choose me because I'm motivated, serious, and a fast learner." It's true, but interchangeable.
A strong answer connects your strengths to the role and proves them: "Based on the ad and our conversation, your priority is to structure a team that has grown fast. That is exactly what I did in my previous role: I took over a team of six with no clear process and set up a project tracking system that let us meet deadlines on our last three projects. I bring that ability to organise without adding weight, along with solid knowledge of your sector. That, I think, matches what you are looking for."
The difference is not talent, it is the connection. The second answer talks about the role, not just about the candidate.
How do you answer according to Swiss codes?
In Switzerland, and particularly in French-speaking Switzerland, one dial matters more than elsewhere: measure. Recruiters value reliability, discretion, and humility. Trying to "sell yourself" too forcefully is quickly read as arrogance, which can work against you even with an excellent background.
In practice, keep a factual tone. Lean on results rather than superlatives. Say "I reduced delays" rather than "I'm the best at this." Own your successes, but without overdoing it. Soft skills and the ability to fit into a team weigh heavily in the decision, as much as pure competence.
One last point on form: never run down the other candidates. You do not know them, and criticising invisible competition hurts your image. Focus on what you bring, not on what others supposedly lack.
This question is one you prepare, like the rest of the interview. The real foundation is knowing your own background and being able to connect each achievement to a specific role. It is the same work as for a good CV: start from real facts and orient them toward the job ad. That is exactly what candidat.app does, building applications from your real background that are calibrated for each posting, without inventing anything. A CV that already speaks to the role makes this interview question far easier to prepare. To go further on this link between profile and posting, see also our article on how the ATS works and the one on the right length for a CV in Switzerland.
In short
"Why you and not someone else?" is not a trap but an invitation to prove you have understood the role. The recruiter is after three things: your grasp of the challenges, your motivation specific to this company, and your concrete added value. Answer by connecting two or three strengths to the needs of the role, backed by a verifiable result, ideally structured with the STAR method. In Switzerland, stay factual and measured: modesty and reliability are assets, not self-promotion. And never compare your profile to candidates you do not know.
FAQ
Do I really have to compare myself to the other candidates to answer?
No. You do not know the other candidates, and placing yourself above them comes across as arrogance. Talk only about what you bring, connected to the needs of the role. It is that fit the recruiter wants to gauge, not a competition.
What do I say if I lack self-confidence?
Lean on facts rather than impressions. A concrete result ("I organised such a project, here is what it produced") is more solid and easier to own than a statement about your qualities. Facts speak for you and stop you from overdoing it.
Is the question a bad sign?
Rather the opposite. It is often asked at the end of the interview because your profile has caught attention and the recruiter wants to confirm their interest. It is a chance to close on a strong note, not a test designed to trip you up.
How long should my answer be?
Around a minute and a half to two minutes. Enough to give a concrete example and its proof, not so long that you get lost in detail. An answer that is too long dilutes the argument; one that is too short sounds hollow.
Do Swiss codes change the way you answer?
Yes, on tone. The substance stays the same (connecting your strengths to the role), but in Switzerland more measure and discretion are expected. Favour the factual, own your successes without overplaying them, and avoid any overconfidence that could be read as arrogance.