This is usually the first question, which means a weak answer sets the tone for everything after it. Most people either recite their CV chronologically from school onward, or ramble for five minutes with no shape. Neither answers what's actually being assessed.
What they're actually assessing
Can you frame your own story with relevance and brevity? That's it. Not your full history — your ability to pick the right three things and say them clearly.
The three-part structure
- Where you are now. One sentence on your current role and its scope — not a job title recitation, the actual shape of what you do.
- One proof point. A single specific result that demonstrates you're good at the thing this role needs. Not three results, not a list — one, told with enough detail to be credible.
- Why this role is the logical next step. Connect the proof point to what they're hiring for, so the story has a direction rather than just stopping.
Sixty to ninety seconds is short enough that you have to cut things — that's the point. If you're not sure what to cut, cut chronology first. Nobody needs to know what you did at 19 to judge whether you can do this job now.
"Why should we hire you?"
This one tests something slightly different — can you connect your evidence to their specific need, rather than describing yourself in general.
Notice the pattern repeats: adjectives and generic claims fail, specific results tied to the role's actual need succeed. That's true across nearly every interview question, not just these two.