First off, I agree that the question is lame. I wouldn’t ask it myself. But the proposed answer comes off as smarmy and weaselly. When I interview people, more than anything, I’m trying to get a sense of the person, more than a sense of their job skills. If you are going to not answer the questions I ask you in an interview, you aren’t going to give me direct answers on the job.
Actually, the best questions are “describe for me a time when you did…”. It forces them to give specific examples of behavior. As you say, it’s easy to come up with bullshit answers to “how do you feel about…” questions. Show me you actually do feel that way with examples of past behavior.
Although even with those, a person who knows interviewing is going to have prepared an answer to the most common “describe a time” answers…
when you had to work with a difficult team member
when you were asked to do something you felt unethical
when you solved a problem
when you had a problem you couldn’t solve
when you led a team
Its an interview. I have a person I work with regularly that is “bang my head against a brick wall” difficult. And if I was interviewing, he would NOT be the difficult team member I’d choose to describe because no matter what I’ve done I can create a successful relationship. I’d choose to describe one of the other relationships I’ve had where I’ve had more success.
My answer: Chocolate cake and expensive shoes.
Seriously, an honest answer will most likely not knock you out of the running. “My freehand math is pretty weak. Boy am I glad this is the age of calculators!”
“I wish I was better at public speaking. I get very nervous before I give a presentation.”
“I tend to fuck the cleaning lady after hours.” Oops…that’s prolly gonna hurt your chances.
If ever I was asked that question I think I would answer, “I tend to be a little too open in showing my feelings about stupidity, like how I rolled my eyes when you asked that question.”
What are you talking about? This isn’t about slave auctions. Lot’s of companies do genuine “to talk about how we can benefit each other” type interviews especially for management positions and sales. You seem to imply if not outright say that the interviewing company controls the interview completely and that is outright false and unhealthy if it is viewed that way. I have a good job but that is because the company passed MY part of the interview before I agreed to work there. Lots of others have not and I wouldn’t entertain any further interviews. That is the only healthy way and there is nothing wrong with not playing along with stupid questions just because they are asked in a pseudo-interrogation session. Sure, it might kill your chances for the job but that may be a desired outcome for you at that point so there is nothing to lose.
I EXPECT him/her to be prepared with answers.
There’s no single foolproof question to ask. To get a job with my company, you have to go through 5x 30-45 min interviews after we decide we like your resume. One phone screen to make sure you aren’t a weirdo and to see if your resume checks out. Then three interviews with staff and management where we ask questions about your technical skills, experience, behavior patterns and so on. If we still like you at that point, then you sit down with the head of the group. Even after all that, the occassional fuck-up still gets by.
I don’t really understand why this question strikes so many as stupid and pointless, or as a simple call for self-incrimination.
You know it’s coming. Just answer it honestly and try to parlay it into an opportunity to demonstrate an ability for self-correction.
“In the past I have found that I’ve had a tendency to spend a little too much time on details, but I’m aware of that and make a conscious effort to stay focused on overall project deadlines.”
Sure, the point being that all the standard interview questions have canned answers that may not be the MOST honest, open and truthful of the possibilities and that the interviewer expects a fairly prepared response that is going to cast you in the best light. i.e. to a certain extend, they are pretty canned plotlines…
I agree with your point in general; that the interview process should work both ways. I agree the interview should be just as much about the interviewee finding out if he wants to work there, as much as the interviewer finding out if he wants to hire the applicant.
But I wouldn’t think it was a good policy for applicants to decide they didn’t want to work in that job, just because the interviewer asked questions they didn’t like, or didn’t handle the interview well.
It often depends on the company, but many people who do the interviewing either have had no training in how to interview, so may come up with some odd questions. Or they may have just attended a “How to Conduct an Interview” seminar, and are trying new things out, or sticking too closely to a written script that really doesn’t work well.
We have seen threads on this before here, so we know that often the interviewer is more nervous about conducting the interview than the applicant is in being interviewed. Many people don’t make good interviewers, so I don’t think it wise to judge the whole company or job on how well the interviewer does.
Let’s pretend you are an exceptionally attractive person. ( Well, I guess if you are, then we don’t have to pretend…) Let’s say the woman who will be interviewing you is just filling in for someone else, doesn’t have much experience conducting interviews, and is a nervous wreck. Her personal weakness is that she gets all flustered around good looking men. Always has, always will.
She comes off very strange, goes down the list of recommended questions like in the OP. This is one of the worst interviews you have ever seen. You might be tempted just based on that, to decide that you don’t want the job, and not go along and answer the annoying questions. But the reality is that that interviewer really wouldn’t have much affect on the job you will be doing. It could be that it is a great company, the interviewer is actually very good at what her usual job is, as are all the other employees. It is just that when they saw your resume, and how perfect you looked for the position, they didn’t want to wait until the usual interviewer came back from vacation, they wanted to meet with you ASAP to make sure you didn’t get hired somewhere else. So they asked another employee to handle the interview, who just wasn’t very good at it.
My advice for people being interviewed is to concentrate on two things. One is to ask questions and find out what you need to know for you to decide if you want the job. The other is to make sure the person who is doing the interview recommends you for the job. You always want to have the option of turning the job down. Halfway through the interview you may decide that the job isn’t for you. Keep that too yourself, and continue on with your best effort. You won’t have to take the job. But since you are already there, why not leave them with a good impression of you?
I know there have been times I interviewed someone for a certain position and really thought they had a lot to offer. During the interview I realized they really were overqualified for what I was looking for, and I couldn’t offer the money that they would surely get somewhere else. At some point they realized this too, but still maintained a professional attitude. They continued to be polite, and answer questions. When I called them back, and they were ready to turn down the position, they were pleasantly surprised to find I was prepared to offer them another, much better position. In one case I called back and offered them my job, as I had just been promoted and knew I would have to fill my current position.
Had the applicant not “played along” with questions he may have felt were stupid, or beneath him, the interview would have ended much too soon for me to realize he was someone who would be ideal for a much better position we had to offer.
Had I originally been interviewing him for my job, I would have structured the questions and interview process differently. The questions I asked for the lower position probably did seem silly to him. But he never let that come across to me in any way. So I could see him handling my job very well, where the ability to pleasantly deal with things you don’t think you should have to deal with is a real plus.
I just don’t see the downside to playing along throughout the interview. You are already there, might as well show how gracefully you can handle their silly questions. When they call to hire you, you are free to politely decline. It just makes more sense when looking for a job to show your best side. It shouldn’t be that difficult to pull off, and you never know when you might run into that person or have to deal with that company again.
Or you could use Spud’s answer from Trainspotting!
Warning- link has sound & quick drug use, followed by a hilarious job interview tank job!
I had a job interview recently and sadly, I was given this question. Even sadder, because I hadn’t really given any thought to it beforehand (believing the question to be such an “interview cliché” that I’d only jokingly considered responses like “it’s really a toss-up between crystal meth and workplace masturbation”) that I struggled momentarily to answer. It’s remarkable how slowly time passes when you’re suddenly sitting in silence with an expectant interviewer staring at you, pencil poised to take note of your response.
I finally did stammer something out, but it created an awkward pause in what was an otherwise well-flowing conversation—and although I felt the rest of the two-hour interview went really well, afterward (and ever since) all I can think about is the one brief moment when I choked on a stupid open-ended question for which I should’ve been prepared. I hope it isn’t the only thing the interviewer remembers.
While I don’t think I’d ever have the balls to turn hostile during an interview, I can see where someone would if they’ve certainly learned that the company isn’t someplace they want to work for. If people are running around all over the place, there’s a long wait as they try to figure out who is supposed to interview you, drag in someone who’s clearly unprepared who can barely give you the time, and asks you stupid questions, it pretty much would be a sign that I wouldn’t take the job. Along the same lines, if I dealt with someone who was personally offensive, insulting, or dismissive in some way, I wouldn’t take the job either, even if I wouldn’t be working for that person (as I think it is an indicator of the culture of the place that this person was chosen to interview potential new recruits and they behave that way).
It’s never happened to me – though I have had some frustrating interview experiences, nothing so bad I’d walk during an actual interview – but I have heard of some pretty nightmarish interviews.
Back when I was looking for a job, all of the interview books and “Tips and Hints” used to say that you’re supposed to take what is normally considered a strength and turn it into a weakness.
Such as “I tend to push myself too hard and am very bullheaded, I will get so wrapped up in solving a problem that I forget to eat” (or something like that.
Then the consensus was that answering like this was considered fake and self-serving (as well it should be, how dumb!). The problem is, the books and articles don’t really ever say what you’re supposed to answer.
I hit upon a bit of a compromise which has really worked for me in the past. I pick a small innocuous “fault” and then in the same sentence and as quickly as possible I tell how I “solve” my fault or make it not count against me.
For instance, I HATE filing and opening mail (who doesn’t?). So in an interview I’d say something like “I dislike filing and opening mail, so I make myself do it right off the bat and don’t allow myself to procrastinate…etc”.
Thing is, this is true about me, and most people. So it likely rings quite true to the interviewer. I dislike mundane tasks and I know I am apt to put them off unless I force myself to do them, so normally I will tackle them right away so that they don’t sit there LOOOOMing all day long.
I know it’s different for each industry, but in my line of work you can NEVER burn your bridges. It is a small club and everyone knows everyone. If I am talking to someone else who has been in my line of work for any length of time, we always have aquaintances in common. If I walked out of an interview, people in my industry would hear about it.
Also, stupid interviewers are a part of life, you might as well try to learn from the experience. It won’t cost you anything more than the time you have already budgeted for the interview anyway.
In addition to what madmonk said about not burning bridges you should consider that the interview process isn’t necessarily a good insight into how they do their real business, unless it’s a very large or burnout prone company where constant turnover needs to be factored in. In a small to mid sized company they may assign the interviewing task to someone great at his real job but…
*as a real time example, look at our own Stoid. She obviously has a nice little concern going on that she’s at least willing to hire a 50 grand a year employee but her instincts on job advertising is clearly lacking. 
I don’t see why, if you’ve determined you’d never work for that company or that interviewer, you’d need to turn hostile. There may be a time where you look at the person interviewing you and say “it seems pretty obvious this isn’t the place for me, nor am I the person for the job. I’m sure you are busy and perhaps we should just cut this short and get back to work.” But even there it would have to be the trifecta of bad matching - a manager you obviously don’t hit it off with, a job you obviously don’t want, for a company you obviously have zero intention of working for. Because even if you don’t hit it off with the manager or don’t want the job, its possible there are other opportunities in the company currently or coming that you could bridge to, and if you hate the company, it isn’t impossible that the people you are interviewing with don’t have connections other places - or won’t themselves be at other places shortly.
A good interviewer asks follow up questions. They ask for examples. Sometimes I’m not looking at the answer, I’m looking at HOW they answer. Are they flippant and defensive like half the people in this thread? Or are they thoughtfull and professional. That attitude will probably carry over into their work. The purpose of behavioral questions isn’t to try to stump the candidate. It’s to try to determine what kind of person they are by how they react to difficult, or ambiguous questions.
Reacting as an employer and human, without reading the rest of the thread:
Negative. Defensive. Smartass. Condescending. Red flags: what’s so bad you aren’t willing to cop to it?
Everyone has flaws. When I ask that question, I’m not only evaluating your willingness to be honest and your willingness to allow for imperfection, I’m genuinely trying to determine if your weaknesses are the kind that I can tolerate or work with in the job. Depending on the position and the employter, some weaknesses are pretty easy to overlook or compensate for. Others, not so much. An example that not being particularly whizzy at math is not a meaningful weakness for a job as a PR exec.
If you won’t tell me what your weak areas are, then I can’t seriously consider you for the job because I don’t know what I’m getting.
Just find a way to frame the truth in a reasonably nice way, without coming off like you’re full of crap.