The animal question

Recently, I had a conversation with someone regarding an interview question. She gave a great answer that I'd like to share with others.

The question: If you could be any animal, what would you be and why?

Now, before I give away her answer which I thought was very good, I'd ask you to think about it a few moments and say outloud or use the post below on how you'd answer.
..
...
....
.....
......
Still thinking or are you just trying to find out the answer? Seriously, give it a few moments and try to answer the question.

Good. Now that we have your answer, please allow me to ramble first on why I think the animal question is bad interview question.

In interviews, the primary objective is to gauge a person through a short period of time using various tests to determine if the person is capable of performing the tasks as demanded for the open position. There might be secondary objectives exists such as would the person fit within the culture of the organization or is the person someone I want to work with, but the primary objective is usually determined by the needs of the open position.

Now, one way to achieve the primary objective is by subjecting the interviewee to questions. The purpose behind such question is again to gauge the capability of the interviewee. With the animal question, I believe the key objective is to prob several areas:
1. personality of the candidate
2. innovative, creative thinking
3. ability to form coherent ideas out of thin air (bullshitting)
4. logic or lack thereof
5. communication style

While the question is successful in tackling several areas, it doesn't do any of the above very well with the exception of maybe number 3.

If you analyze the above areas, each can be tested with a more concise question. Logic thinking ability can be analyzed by asking the person to solve a problem and explain how they reach the solution. Communication style can be analyzed by questioning communication skills and methods. Creative thinking can be analyzed by asking if the person has developed new ideas. Etc. Etc. By tackling each area individually with better tailored question, we can arrive at a better view of the candidate than the animal question. But because most people are short on time and slightly lazy (myself included), the animal question is a tried question and it continues in its existence.

Now, away from my rambling and onto the answer.

She said she would be a snowdog because they work well in a teams (and must work in teams) but also are strong individually in pulling the sled. Was it really what she would be? I don't think so! But she answered it in a creative fashion with logic to boot. She followed by clearly explaining her reasoning (which I shortened for writing sake) along with a demostration of her personality: teamwork and individual strength. In essence, she was good at "form[ing] coherent ideas out of thin air" a.k.a bullshitting.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not writing to by cynical or to badmouth my friend. I know she's smart, a hard-working, creative girl who has a good understanding of what a interviewer wants to hear. Does this make her a great candidate for the job? I don't know, but I believe she should fit well in many organizations. Rather, my point is that because of such uninsightful interview questions, often times interviewing ends up being is less about demonstrating the skills for the job and more about getting the "right" answers.