This brings to mind an interview I had a few years ago with a startup company (nascent satellite maker/operator). I had interviews with the three founding partners, all C-level execs; one was a finance guy, the second was the technical officer, and the third was the managing partner and bizdev guy. The first just had a few basic questions about my background, but we ended up having a long discussion about costing models and why the existing models were not really useful for commercial startups in the smallsat industry. The second started out as a casual conversation for the first five minutes, and then the guy started telling me the story of his career, occasionally interjecting some kind of technical problem he had working on a major satellite program, and then inviting me to comment on his solutions or issues, which was a really clever way of vetting my experience without asking me any actual questions, while at the same time showing me that he knew his stuff and valued technical input and different ideas. The third wanted to play mindfuck games and asked me stupid boilerplate questions and then tried to “Gotcha!” me when he felt my answers weren’t consistent or sincere. He literally said at one point, “I don’t think you believe what you just said.” (I forget the exact question, but it was one of those generic, “How do you deal with conflict?” questions that didn’t actually pose a scenario, so as an interviewee you’re stuck trying to figure out what kind of response they’re looking for.) After about twenty minutes and multiple accusations that I was misrepresenting myself and my experience, I finally told him that I didn’t know what he was looking for but he was free to talk to my references and call former employers to verify that I’d been and done what I said, at which point he feigned an injured tone and explained that he wasn’t trying to bait me, even though that was clearly exactly what he was doing.
Lunch (after the interviews) was very uncomfortable, and I got the sense that the partners really weren’t in agreement about much of anything, so when they came back with an offer that I thought was below the minimum they should be offering me I was already inclined to reject the position. The CTO called me back the day after I rejected their offer and asked me if there was anything they could do to entice me to consider their offer, and I asked him point blank if their CEO was as much of a dick as he seemed to be in the interview, to which he was silent and then said, “Well, he can be.” So, one shitty interviewer with stupid boilerplate questions and a murphable attitude basically screwed their company out of an employee that (I think) the other two execs wanted to hire, and me out of a position that would have been interesting work.
So, I guess my honest answer to the question, “What is your greatest weakness?” is “I have zero tolerance for self-impressed assholes asking stupid questions.” It’s probably not going to get me hired at many places, but it is honest and true.
How about, “Based on what you know of the job so far what part of it would you have the most difficulty performing and how would you go about overcoming that difficulty?” Something that asks about weaknesses related to the actual job the person is applying for?
Chocolate eclairs!
I’m already assuming they’re making judgments about me because I’m really fat; I’m certainly not going to bring it up at an interview!
The question doesn’t ask for one of your weaknesses, it asks specifically for your GREATEST weakness, which (again) for most people is something they’d be incredibly stupid to reveal to an interviewer. The fact that you’re trying to dodge the ‘greatest’ part tells me that it’s probably not the worst thing in the arsenal, but that’s exactly what the question asks. I’m also not sure that ‘problems’ that you’ve already solved count as a weakness anymore, since they don’t seem to weaken you - “I didn’t know English but I learned it” doesn’t seem like a valid answer, for example, even though not knowing English would hurt you in most US jobs.
Of course the smart answer is to pick a weakness that isn’t too bad, doesn’t indicate any disability or major mental issue, and that you have already fixed so that it doesn’t hurt you any more, and if you get to demonstrate skill with an application that’s even a little bonus. My canned answer does all that too, I know how to play the game and I’m good at BSing on my feet if an interviewer wants follow-up. And I’m not dumb enough to talk about a day when depression was bad enough that I had to force myself to get out of bed and drag myself to work and fake accomplishing more than a few required things to get through that day, even though that’s a much bigger weakness than ‘my time management is bad so I use a calendar’ or ‘sometimes I focus too much on one thing so I sue a reminder’.
I’m a nurse, and I usually work in long term care or dementia care. My honest answer to that question would be “I prefer spending time with the people in my care than endless time doing paperwork, care plans, conferences. I don’t mind charting what happened, or going to rounds or the monthly care conferences, but to me the bullshit paperwork takes a secondary seat to actually being with the client. Also I hate medicating people into drooling ficus trees, especially if it is more of a personality trait rather than an actual behaviour that is causing distress to themselves or others.”
I am at a loss as to how to communicate this without sounding like a) I don’t want to do the paperwork required of an RN (In general RNs are the paperwork people, and the care aides are the ones who get to spend time with the people) b) That I am against all sedative or antipsychotics.
But you don’t believe honest, true answers depending on what they are. That would mean someone who truly, honestly answers that he’s a perfectionist and how he fights it would be screwed despite giving a honest, true answer about something which can negatively impact their work and what they do to avoid such negative impacts.
Mind you, that’s both the root problem and the root reason to interview: the reason is to see if someone “fits”, the problem is that often the “fit” is not to the job but to the interviewer’s prejudices.
My initial reaction is neither of those are your weaknesses; rather, they are your preferences for what kind of job/facility/environment you would like to be in. It’s not like you do a crappy job at the paperwork, just that it’s not your favorite part of the job.
Maybe something like “I get my energy and purpose from interacting with clients rather than spending all of my time with paperwork – what would you say the mix is in this position?” steering it back to a worthwhile conversation about what the job is about.
Gigi had a very good suggestion. About the paperwork, I’m guessing that this is a common complaint among RNs if they are the paperwork people? If so, you can use that to frame where you are coming from. “Like a lot of RNs, I prefer spending time with patients over doing a lot of paperwork, but I do understand that paperwork is important and necessary…” You get the idea.
About the drug issue, are there references you can point to about the proper use of sedatives and antipsychotics? Something like “Is your facility certified by the American Really Smart People Association for psychotropic drug use? If not, what guidelines do you use? I am comfortable with/would prefer/would strongly prefer/really admire the ARSPA’s guidelines…”
And not everything needs to be done “perfectly”. I’ve seen too many people spend way too much time preparing internal documents for a status meeting with their group, than is required or even appreciated.
Having trouble coming up with an answer is not the same as saying you don’t have any weaknesses, it is more that you don’t focus on them.
I don’t think people in general walk around focusing on what they are weak at. They are either performing tasks each day which are their strength or avoid doing stuff they don’t like to do, which they might also be weak at. So if someone were answering those questions honestly, I wouldn’t expect a quick canned response to the question unless they memorized something like an essay paragraph answer for an exam.
I believe there are better questions to ask. I’ve been in the work force for many years at different jobs, and no hiring manager ever asked me what my weaknesses are. I’ve had them ask me what they thought I was best at doing, which I consider to be a useful question.
Right, because if your answer is that you intend to be their supervisor, you aren’t getting the job. So what answer is going to make them happy? “In 5 years, I will be a drone is sector G, Mr. Burns…”. “Hire this man, Smithers!” said Mr. Burns.
Which just goes to show that they ask those questions, because they have been asked those questions and still don’t know why or what is a useful answer to them.
BA = Business Analyst. The person who explains what needs to be done.
PM = Project Manager. The person in charge of making sure that what ends up being done is what was requested.
Is there any reason you removed most of the caps? “it” and “IT” are two very different things.
Yeah, you should probably know that for the interview:D
I don’t think anyone asks that question anymore. You’ll be lucky to be here in 2 years.
Saying “your supervisor” is obviously a stupid and arrogant response to that question. I’m not hiring you so I can stagnate in my current role over the next decade.
You should have some idea where you want to go in your career through. And you should phrase it in such a way that it demonstrates how your long term interests aligns with the companies.
For example. I had a candidate tell me they “wanted to make partner in 5 years”. That was wrong for many reasons. A better response would be “I want to develop specific industry or service line experience to the point where I am actively sought out by clients as a subject matter expert”. IOW, I don’t care what you want, I care what you want to do.
I have to interview a couple candidates tomorrow. I’m going to ask them the “weaknesses” question and then tell them their answer is wrong, but not why it’s wrong.
