How do you respond to the interview question, "What is your greatest weakness?"

[Indeependent]

Yesterday I had to do a phone interview of an experienced hire candidate who seeks to join our firm as a senior manager (one step below "entry level" partner). The interview was going along well and I decided to as one of the easiest "tough" questions there are: What's your greatest weakness?

Well, there's a first time for everything, I suppose. Yesterday was the first time I've asked that question and received an answer that by itself determined my decision about whether to give my imprimatur for hiring the candidate.

The man answered by in effect saying that he's been told that he can be difficult to work with. Upon hearing that, I abruptly ended the interview, asking if he had any questions of me. He didn't and that was that.

I have no idea what led the candidate to think that giving the answer he did could possibly aid and abet his assertion that he'd be a good person for us to hire, but insofar as he gave it, he must have his reasons. What I do know is that being hard to work with and lacking the judgment not to say that in an interview indicated the guy is too stupid and under seasoned for us to hire in any capacity. I was so astounded that I emailed the people who did the preliminary "phone screen" and early stage interviews on the guy to inquire how his abject inanity and unfitness for our firm did not come through when they spoke with him. I was and remain incredulous that the guy made it far enough through the interview process that he got to talk to me.

(Normally, I don't any longer do interviews, but the guy specifically expressed an interest in being part of my practice unit, and I have final say on all manager-and-above experienced hires who aim to it. It was rather serendipitous that I had to be part of the interview team considering him because the unique nature of my unit's work militates for "growing" people more so than finding them from outside the firm.)

The guy could have said any number of things. Hell, he could have gone with one of the standard pat answers to that question, and I'd have at least counted his answer as neither strong nor weak, but as neutral.

So with that as background, how did you answer the question I posed when you have been asked it?

Honesty isn't a big value in your book? You asked, you got an answer.
What ARE the standard pat answers? I hate those damned interview questions, and I don't remember what I said. I don't think I got asked all that horseshit stuff for this job. We talked about education and experience, etc.

No, honesty isn't a value to him.

Snotesty is a value to him.

 

[koshergrl]

I had a job interview yesterday, and I was happy that there were none of those stupid generic questions I get all of the time. I consider those questions to be time wasting and laziness on the part of the interviewer.

My interview actually involved my experience and how that matched up with the duties needed to perform the job. It was actually an enjoyable interview.

Decent people don't play games with interviewees, and then wax smug about it. We know that much.

 

[koshergrl]

Yesterday I had to do a phone interview of an experienced hire candidate who seeks to join our firm as a senior manager (one step below "entry level" partner). The interview was going along well and I decided to as one of the easiest "tough" questions there are: What's your greatest weakness?

Well, there's a first time for everything, I suppose. Yesterday was the first time I've asked that question and received an answer that by itself determined my decision about whether to give my imprimatur for hiring the candidate.

The man answered by in effect saying that he's been told that he can be difficult to work with. Upon hearing that, I abruptly ended the interview, asking if he had any questions of me. He didn't and that was that.

I have no idea what led the candidate to think that giving the answer he did could possibly aid and abet his assertion that he'd be a good person for us to hire, but insofar as he gave it, he must have his reasons. What I do know is that being hard to work with and lacking the judgment not to say that in an interview indicated the guy is too stupid and under seasoned for us to hire in any capacity. I was so astounded that I emailed the people who did the preliminary "phone screen" and early stage interviews on the guy to inquire how his abject inanity and unfitness for our firm did not come through when they spoke with him. I was and remain incredulous that the guy made it far enough through the interview process that he got to talk to me.

(Normally, I don't any longer do interviews, but the guy specifically expressed an interest in being part of my practice unit, and I have final say on all manager-and-above experienced hires who aim to it. It was rather serendipitous that I had to be part of the interview team considering him because the unique nature of my unit's work militates for "growing" people more so than finding them from outside the firm.)

The guy could have said any number of things. Hell, he could have gone with one of the standard pat answers to that question, and I'd have at least counted his answer as neither strong nor weak, but as neutral.

So with that as background, how did you answer the question I posed when you have been asked it?

Honesty isn't a big value in your book? You asked, you got an answer.
What ARE the standard pat answers? I hate those damned interview questions, and I don't remember what I said. I don't think I got asked all that horseshit stuff for this job. We talked about education and experience, etc.

No, honesty isn't a value to him.

Snotesty is a value to him.

Crooks don't want honest..or terribly intelligent... people working for them, generally speaking.

 

[Indeependent]

Yesterday I had to do a phone interview of an experienced hire candidate who seeks to join our firm as a senior manager (one step below "entry level" partner). The interview was going along well and I decided to as one of the easiest "tough" questions there are: What's your greatest weakness?

Well, there's a first time for everything, I suppose. Yesterday was the first time I've asked that question and received an answer that by itself determined my decision about whether to give my imprimatur for hiring the candidate.

The man answered by in effect saying that he's been told that he can be difficult to work with. Upon hearing that, I abruptly ended the interview, asking if he had any questions of me. He didn't and that was that.

I have no idea what led the candidate to think that giving the answer he did could possibly aid and abet his assertion that he'd be a good person for us to hire, but insofar as he gave it, he must have his reasons. What I do know is that being hard to work with and lacking the judgment not to say that in an interview indicated the guy is too stupid and under seasoned for us to hire in any capacity. I was so astounded that I emailed the people who did the preliminary "phone screen" and early stage interviews on the guy to inquire how his abject inanity and unfitness for our firm did not come through when they spoke with him. I was and remain incredulous that the guy made it far enough through the interview process that he got to talk to me.

(Normally, I don't any longer do interviews, but the guy specifically expressed an interest in being part of my practice unit, and I have final say on all manager-and-above experienced hires who aim to it. It was rather serendipitous that I had to be part of the interview team considering him because the unique nature of my unit's work militates for "growing" people more so than finding them from outside the firm.)

The guy could have said any number of things. Hell, he could have gone with one of the standard pat answers to that question, and I'd have at least counted his answer as neither strong nor weak, but as neutral.

So with that as background, how did you answer the question I posed when you have been asked it?

Honesty isn't a big value in your book? You asked, you got an answer.
What ARE the standard pat answers? I hate those damned interview questions, and I don't remember what I said. I don't think I got asked all that horseshit stuff for this job. We talked about education and experience, etc.

No, honesty isn't a value to him.

Snotesty is a value to him.

Crooks don't want honest..or terribly intelligent... people working for them, generally speaking.

He has to maintain his lifestyle by suppressing the up and comers and he has long speeches to justify his bullshit.

 

[koshergrl]

Yesterday I had to do a phone interview of an experienced hire candidate who seeks to join our firm as a senior manager (one step below "entry level" partner). The interview was going along well and I decided to as one of the easiest "tough" questions there are: What's your greatest weakness?

Well, there's a first time for everything, I suppose. Yesterday was the first time I've asked that question and received an answer that by itself determined my decision about whether to give my imprimatur for hiring the candidate.

The man answered by in effect saying that he's been told that he can be difficult to work with. Upon hearing that, I abruptly ended the interview, asking if he had any questions of me. He didn't and that was that.

I have no idea what led the candidate to think that giving the answer he did could possibly aid and abet his assertion that he'd be a good person for us to hire, but insofar as he gave it, he must have his reasons. What I do know is that being hard to work with and lacking the judgment not to say that in an interview indicated the guy is too stupid and under seasoned for us to hire in any capacity. I was so astounded that I emailed the people who did the preliminary "phone screen" and early stage interviews on the guy to inquire how his abject inanity and unfitness for our firm did not come through when they spoke with him. I was and remain incredulous that the guy made it far enough through the interview process that he got to talk to me.

(Normally, I don't any longer do interviews, but the guy specifically expressed an interest in being part of my practice unit, and I have final say on all manager-and-above experienced hires who aim to it. It was rather serendipitous that I had to be part of the interview team considering him because the unique nature of my unit's work militates for "growing" people more so than finding them from outside the firm.)

The guy could have said any number of things. Hell, he could have gone with one of the standard pat answers to that question, and I'd have at least counted his answer as neither strong nor weak, but as neutral.

So with that as background, how did you answer the question I posed when you have been asked it?

Honesty isn't a big value in your book? You asked, you got an answer.
What ARE the standard pat answers? I hate those damned interview questions, and I don't remember what I said. I don't think I got asked all that horseshit stuff for this job. We talked about education and experience, etc.

No, honesty isn't a value to him.

Snotesty is a value to him.

Crooks don't want honest..or terribly intelligent... people working for them, generally speaking.

He has to maintain his lifestyle by suppressing the up and comers and he has long speeches to justify his bullshit.

Like a white collar and slightly intelligent gaybiker.

 

[Indeependent]

Honesty isn't a big value in your book? You asked, you got an answer.
What ARE the standard pat answers? I hate those damned interview questions, and I don't remember what I said. I don't think I got asked all that horseshit stuff for this job. We talked about education and experience, etc.

No, honesty isn't a value to him.

Snotesty is a value to him.

Crooks don't want honest..or terribly intelligent... people working for them, generally speaking.

He has to maintain his lifestyle by suppressing the up and comers and he has long speeches to justify his bullshit.

Like a white collar and slightly intelligent gaybiker.

Now delete that image from my head.

 

[OldLady]

Maybe he's kinda buzzed from all the pool drinks with the umbrella in.
And he was probably annoyed as hell to have to interview ANYONE on his vacation for whatever reason.
That can set up a lot of bad vibes, and the poor guy so sure he had the job.....tough toenails. Whoever that guy is, all I can say is, you probably didn't want to work for Xelor anyway. He is quite the character.

 

[usmbguest5318]

FWIW, I've been asked that question only once in my career, and that was some thirty-plus years ago. My answer went roughly as follows:

I'm somewhat vexed about how to answer that question. I'm certainly not going to sit here and give you a reason not to give me an offer by telling you something odious about myself or divulging my deepest and darkest personal struggle, yet I don't care to lie to you either by saying I have no weaknesses for every human does have some.

I believe I've my interactions with you and your colleagues have not uncovered any material weaknesses in my character or qualifications for the consulting position I seek or for my long term prospects for developing and demonstrating the skills and temperament it'll take to eventually become a partner in the firm. Thus what I'll say in response to that question is that I am aware of my strengths and weaknesses and on balance, I think I've shown that my strengths will make me a very strong member of your firm's team. I can say too that I'm aware of my weaknesses and that I avail myself of every opportunity to attenuate them and that I am very careful not to let them compromise my work or my relationships.
​

Now I don't know if that answer got me the offer, but at the new hire training I attended after accepting the firm's offer, I bumped into the partner to whom I gave that answer and he remarked that it was far and away the best solution he'd ever heard for the dilemma posed by the "what is your greatest weakness" question. He said that as far as he was concerned, it sealed the deal for him.

What I took away from that experience is that in my professional career as it had been in my academic career before, saying things that sharing my carefully considered thoughts and sharing those that aren't the pablum folks may often hear from others put into whatever the hell I may say was going to be one of the keys to my success. Quite frankly, when I formed my answer to the question, what was in my mind was my parent's admonishment to say nothing when I had nothing nice to say. I figured that axiom might as well apply to myself when asked to divulge a negative quality about myself. After all, if I can't be nice, or at least fair and neutral, to myself, then to whom will I be?

 

[Indeependent]

FWIW, I've been asked that question only once in my career, and that was some thirty-plus years ago. My answer went roughly as follows:

I'm somewhat vexed about how to answer that question. I'm certainly not going to sit here and give you a reason not to give me an offer by telling you something odious about myself or divulging my deepest and darkest personal struggle, yet I don't care to lie to you either by saying I have no weaknesses for every human does have some.

I believe I've my interactions with you and your colleagues have not uncovered any material weaknesses in my character or qualifications for the consulting position I seek or for my long term prospects for developing and demonstrating the skills and temperament it'll take to eventually become a partner in the firm. Thus what I'll say in response to that question is that I am aware of my strengths and weaknesses and on balance, I think I've shown that my strengths will make me a very strong member of your firm's team. I can say too that I'm aware of my weaknesses and that I avail myself of every opportunity to attenuate them and that I am very careful not to let them compromise my work or my relationships.
​

Now I don't know if that answer got me the offer, but at the new hire training I attended after accepting the firm's offer, I bumped into the partner to whom I gave that answer and he remarked that it was far and away the best solution he'd ever heard for the dilemma posed by the "what is your greatest weakness" question. He said that as far as he was concerned, it sealed the deal for him.

What I took away from that experience is that in my professional career as it had been in my academic career before, saying things that sharing my carefully considered thoughts and sharing those that aren't the pablum folks may often hear from others put into whatever the hell I may say was going to be one of the keys to my success. Quite frankly, when I formed my answer to the question, what was in my mind was my parent's admonishment to say nothing when I had nothing nice to say. I figured that axiom might as well apply to myself when asked to divulge a negative quality about myself. After all, if I can't be nice, or at least fair and neutral, to myself, then to whom will I be?

Is your Native American name Long Winded?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Maybe he's kinda buzzed from all the pool drinks with the umbrella in.
And he was probably annoyed as hell to have to interview ANYONE on his vacation for whatever reason.
That can set up a lot of bad vibes, and the poor guy so sure he had the job.....tough toenails. Whoever that guy is, all I can say is, you probably didn't want to work for Xelor anyway. He is quite the character.

That can set up a lot of bad vibes, and the poor guy so sure he had the job.....

See this post: How do you respond to the interview question, "What is your greatest weakness?".

I wasn't at all angry about having to interview the guy. An hour or so is hardly a lot of time out of a day filled with doing as much of nothing as I can muster.

 

[evenflow1969]

FWIW, I've been asked that question only once in my career, and that was some thirty-plus years ago. My answer went roughly as follows:

I'm somewhat vexed about how to answer that question. I'm certainly not going to sit here and give you a reason not to give me an offer by telling you something odious about myself or divulging my deepest and darkest personal struggle, yet I don't care to lie to you either by saying I have no weaknesses for every human does have some.

I believe I've my interactions with you and your colleagues have not uncovered any material weaknesses in my character or qualifications for the consulting position I seek or for my long term prospects for developing and demonstrating the skills and temperament it'll take to eventually become a partner in the firm. Thus what I'll say in response to that question is that I am aware of my strengths and weaknesses and on balance, I think I've shown that my strengths will make me a very strong member of your firm's team. I can say too that I'm aware of my weaknesses and that I avail myself of every opportunity to attenuate them and that I am very careful not to let them compromise my work or my relationships.
​

Now I don't know if that answer got me the offer, but at the new hire training I attended after accepting the firm's offer, I bumped into the partner to whom I gave that answer and he remarked that it was far and away the best solution he'd ever heard for the dilemma posed by the "what is your greatest weakness" question. He said that as far as he was concerned, it sealed the deal for him.

What I took away from that experience is that in my professional career as it had been in my academic career before, saying things that sharing my carefully considered thoughts and sharing those that aren't the pablum folks may often hear from others put into whatever the hell I may say was going to be one of the keys to my success. Quite frankly, when I formed my answer to the question, what was in my mind was my parent's admonishment to say nothing when I had nothing nice to say. I figured that axiom might as well apply to myself when asked to divulge a negative quality about myself. After all, if I can't be nice, or at least fair and neutral, to myself, then to whom will I be?

Sounds like you are only interested in being fair to your self. You admitted in your own words that no fair interviewer asks this question. Yet you ask it any way. Do you realy think that some one with real talent wants to work for some one who is not fair and feels zero guilt about it. As far as your giving us the answer to the test ! No body here seems to give a fuck! No one with a brain or options is going to work for you. So as you look at your employes over the next few days, you must ask yourself which ones did you ask that question to, and why are they stupid enough to work for you?

 

[OldLady]

FWIW, I've been asked that question only once in my career, and that was some thirty-plus years ago. My answer went roughly as follows:

I'm somewhat vexed about how to answer that question. I'm certainly not going to sit here and give you a reason not to give me an offer by telling you something odious about myself or divulging my deepest and darkest personal struggle, yet I don't care to lie to you either by saying I have no weaknesses for every human does have some.

I believe I've my interactions with you and your colleagues have not uncovered any material weaknesses in my character or qualifications for the consulting position I seek or for my long term prospects for developing and demonstrating the skills and temperament it'll take to eventually become a partner in the firm. Thus what I'll say in response to that question is that I am aware of my strengths and weaknesses and on balance, I think I've shown that my strengths will make me a very strong member of your firm's team. I can say too that I'm aware of my weaknesses and that I avail myself of every opportunity to attenuate them and that I am very careful not to let them compromise my work or my relationships.
​

Now I don't know if that answer got me the offer, but at the new hire training I attended after accepting the firm's offer, I bumped into the partner to whom I gave that answer and he remarked that it was far and away the best solution he'd ever heard for the dilemma posed by the "what is your greatest weakness" question. He said that as far as he was concerned, it sealed the deal for him.

What I took away from that experience is that in my professional career as it had been in my academic career before, saying things that sharing my carefully considered thoughts and sharing those that aren't the pablum folks may often hear from others put into whatever the hell I may say was going to be one of the keys to my success. Quite frankly, when I formed my answer to the question, what was in my mind was my parent's admonishment to say nothing when I had nothing nice to say. I figured that axiom might as well apply to myself when asked to divulge a negative quality about myself. After all, if I can't be nice, or at least fair and neutral, to myself, then to whom will I be?

Is your Native American name Long Winded?

Perhaps a bit of a weakness? Picture his memos.

 

[toobfreak]

Yesterday I had to do a phone interview of an experienced hire candidate who seeks to join our firm as a senior manager (one step below "entry level" partner). The interview was going along well and I decided to as one of the easiest "tough" questions there are: What's your greatest weakness?

For one thing, asking someone what their greatest weakness is, is a totally worthless and pointless question. I am embarrassed for your using it. It stems from the squeeshy-feeling feminine belief that people actually sit around and ASK themselves such inane questions! Further, it presupposes that a person has the self-awareness to honestly ask AND answer such a question to oneself both meaningfully and accurately. Psychologically, if a person really has the self-judgement to fairly ASK such a question, they probably have the capacity as well to have ADDRESSED and ACTED ON the issue long before they met you. A lot of people have no "greatest weakness" (which implies a RANGE of weaknesses!). A really sound person has no significant weaknesses at all, which leaves many good people in a real jam to try to think one up when asked. For an "interviewer" to ask such an idiotic pointless question out of a need to fill interview time and appear "thorough" and think it will actually yield any meaningful data which they can interpret properly, points to the problem people have in interview situations these days where totally unqualified pinholes such as yourself with absolutely no sense of how to really judge and evaluate people has to resort to some grade school level bullshit that probably came out of a book somewhere on "interview techniques."

Well, there's a first time for everything, I suppose. Yesterday was the first time I've asked that question and received an answer that by itself determined my decision about whether to give my imprimatur for hiring the candidate.

The man answered by in effect saying that he's been told that he can be difficult to work with. Upon hearing that, I abruptly ended the interview, asking if he had any questions of me. He didn't and that was that.

I wouldn't have had any further questions either. The fact that you ended the interview abruptly based solely on THAT probably showed him your company wasn't worth pursuing. While expecting the candidate to be totally prepared for anything, you showed him you were completely unprepared for many answers. That you took his reply as a deal-breaking negative is astounding. There are a million reasons why a person might say that (whether even true about the person or not) and be a good OR bad thing. Maybe one person who in the past was a slacker told him he was hard to work with because he was highly driven and perfectionistic demanding exceptional standards of himself! Maybe he just said that because lacking any real weaknesses he could really see and admit to for you, he just said it because he thought it sounded self-effacing, very honest, self-perceptive and what he thought you wanted to hear. Maybe that answer came out of the same book the question came from on "How to prepare for an interview." No wonder jackals such as yourself spend so much time looking to fill positions and interviewing people-- -- so few people in HR really have any real skill in doing it effectively. It is just thrust upon them.

I have no idea what led the candidate to think that giving the answer he did could possibly aid and abet his assertion that he'd be a good person for us to hire,

And after ALL the trouble the guy had gone to jumping through loops to get that far in your circuitous maze probably for weeks, you didn't even bother to ask.

but insofar as he gave it, he must have his reasons. What I do know is that being hard to work with and lacking the judgment not to say that in an interview indicated the guy is too stupid and under seasoned for us to hire in any capacity.

So in other words, you as an interviewer are so shallow, that you are much less concerned with why the guy gave such a seemingly honest answer than you are that he didn't probably lie and give you a "good" approved, cookie-cutter answer; one carefully planned, picked and thought out in advance to be "just right" for the interview to tell you what you want to hear.

I was so astounded that I emailed the people who did the preliminary "phone screen" and early stage interviews on the guy to inquire how his abject inanity and unfitness for our firm did not come through when they spoke with him. I was and remain incredulous that the guy made it far enough through the interview process that he got to talk to me.

Abject inanity and unfitness. Sounds like your company is the Stepford Wives. Who do you work for, Google? Going for the "perfect fit," eh? Did it ever occur to you that all those other people saw something good in the guy and the problem was you? In an age where Diversity is supposed to the the alter of truth in everything, one thing you can say today about the modern corporation is that they want NO diversity of thinking and ideas! Only cookie-cutter fit ins. Just diversity in the simple, easy things like skin color that gets the Fed off their back. For all you really know, that man might have been the best thing that ever walked through your front door.

(Normally, I don't any longer do interviews, but the guy specifically expressed an interest in being part of my practice unit, and I have final say on all manager-and-above experienced hires who aim to it. It was rather serendipitous that I had to be part of the interview team considering him because the unique nature of my unit's work militates for "growing" people more so than finding them from outside the firm.)

And you should stay far, far away from interviewing anyone ever again. I'd love to hear what YOUR greatest weakness is? If you worked for me, not only would I not trust you to "grow" anyone into the well-groomed automaton position of brain-washed group-think you obviously have in mind for whomever you hire to assure they "fit in" properly, but I would probably demote or fire you for releasing a candidate on such thin, specious grounds with absolutely no idea what his answers even meant. If you fuck up such easy things, what more important things must you get wrong every day? I can get an 8th grader at minimum wage to do the "Pavlov's Dog" level of brain-dead interviewing you apparently conduct and I'm sure it would save the company a great deal of money with no worse results.

The guy could have said any number of things. Hell, he could have gone with one of the standard pat answers to that question, and I'd have at least counted his answer as neither strong nor weak, but as neutral. So with that as background, how did you answer the question I posed when you have been asked it?

Case closed. Is it any wonder this country is in sorry shape? You are a fucking idiot drone and the real question is how stupid must a corporation be these days to allow a pinhead as yourself to aspire to the level of being in the position of judging others? That must be your greatest weakness----- the illusion that you know what you are doing. Obviously all you need to get into your company is to do the very worst things-- -- -- give planned, rehearsed, cookie-cutter answers that actually reflect NOTHING of the real person being considered for the hire other than his willingness to CONFORM TO GROUP THINK. The problem with group think is that if it is even a little bit wrong, then, THE ENTIRE GROUP IS WRONG. Of course, being the fact that your company placed you in such authority, obviously I don't expect one watt of this to ever get through and make any sense to you-- -- -- you have been properly "grown" to fit your role as head imbecile.

 

[rightwinger]

Yesterday I had to do a phone interview of an experienced hire candidate who seeks to join our firm as a senior manager (one step below "entry level" partner). The interview was going along well and I decided to as one of the easiest "tough" questions there are: What's your greatest weakness?

Well, there's a first time for everything, I suppose. Yesterday was the first time I've asked that question and received an answer that by itself determined my decision about whether to give my imprimatur for hiring the candidate.

The man answered by in effect saying that he's been told that he can be difficult to work with. Upon hearing that, I abruptly ended the interview, asking if he had any questions of me. He didn't and that was that.

I have no idea what led the candidate to think that giving the answer he did could possibly aid and abet his assertion that he'd be a good person for us to hire, but insofar as he gave it, he must have his reasons. What I do know is that being hard to work with and lacking the judgment not to say that in an interview indicated the guy is too stupid and under seasoned for us to hire in any capacity. I was so astounded that I emailed the people who did the preliminary "phone screen" and early stage interviews on the guy to inquire how his abject inanity and unfitness for our firm did not come through when they spoke with him. I was and remain incredulous that the guy made it far enough through the interview process that he got to talk to me.

(Normally, I don't any longer do interviews, but the guy specifically expressed an interest in being part of my practice unit, and I have final say on all manager-and-above experienced hires who aim to it. It was rather serendipitous that I had to be part of the interview team considering him because the unique nature of my unit's work militates for "growing" people more so than finding them from outside the firm.)

The guy could have said any number of things. Hell, he could have gone with one of the standard pat answers to that question, and I'd have at least counted his answer as neither strong nor weak, but as neutral.

So with that as background, how did you answer the question I posed when you have been asked it?

So the guy should have lied

That is a stupid question anyway.................Ummmm......Kryptonite?

 

[usmbguest5318]

I was asked that question once and I answered with...I sometimes catch myself getting to detailed in my work and it slows my production.
I was going to be making flight hardware for the shuttle program.

I got the job.

I sometimes catch myself getting to detailed in my work and it slows my production.

That's essentially one of the pat answers one expects to receive upon asking that question. If it or something like it is what I get in response, giving that sort of answer neither helps nor hinders the candidate's position with me.

You have to turn the question around and hit them back with it in a different form.

This is a part of rhetorical sophistry.

They are playing the game with you so you need to play it back on them.

Well, an interviewee may try that with me, but doing so is one of the ways to lessen the odds that I approve their receiving an offer. When I'm the interviewer, I'm not the one being tested, as it were. Candidates are well advised to keep that in mind at all times during their interview process. I suspect in thinking that way about the situation that I'm not rare among principals, most especially not among very senior principals (people in the top three tiers of a firm's management).

See that is where you are wrong. If you are looking at the best candidates they likey have options. You had better belive they are trying to figure out who they are going to work for in that interview. Money is not realy a thing for me any more. My house and cars are paid for, I owe nobody any thing. I could go years with out a pay check. Although mon ey is no longer the biggest concern or even realy a concern, feeling productive is a big concern. I am self employed and do well at it. How ever I am getting to old to be the butcher, the baker and the candle stick maker. I would like to concentrate on one thing and do it well. I find a place that wants to offer real value to their customers and operates with integrity I would likely be there till I die and because I like to succeed above all else, I will do one hell of a job. I will not even entertain the idea of a job that does not offer value and integrity to it's customers. You are scaring away some good applicants with that attitude. If you want applicants that have no where else to go, keep that attitude. If you want applicants that are in demand you may want to sell what you have to offer. If you are high up in the firm you are not likely looking for the average Joe in your interviews. If these are positions of senior management I would think you are looking for exceptional people. These kind of people typically have options.

See that is where you are wrong.

TY, but I'm sure I know better than you what is the right way to handle anything and everything having to do with the interview process at my firm. I don't know what makes you think you can be so presumptuous as to tell me that I'm wrong about such a thing.

If you are looking at the best candidates they likey have options.

If that's the case, s/he'd do well to work elsewhere because pulling a stunt like that with me or my colleagues makes it clear to us that our firm is not a good fit for them; thus s/he not a good fit for us.

Ya, you Know better! Great answer! Expected from some one who is of senior management. Obvously there is nothing left for you to learn or improve on. Here is what you forget. I did not just interview for you. I am not asking you for a job. I would not take it any way. I do not need to impress you. You put a thread on a political site where people argue all day. Did you think your senior management position prohibits some one from disagreeing with you? If I am not on your pay roll. You want to tell me how it goes you are going to need a better argument than " I think I know better". Do you want to poke a hole in my logic as explained. You can take the I am me so I know better and shove it up your fucking ass. If you are so far superior argue the logic!

Did you think your senior management position prohibits some one from disagreeing with you?

No. I think that one's not knowing in what firm I'm a managing partner is sufficient for one to eschew the presumptuousness of telling me I'm wrong about my firm's approach to and philosophy about hiring and interviewing.

 

[evenflow1969]

Yesterday I had to do a phone interview of an experienced hire candidate who seeks to join our firm as a senior manager (one step below "entry level" partner). The interview was going along well and I decided to as one of the easiest "tough" questions there are: What's your greatest weakness?

For one thing, asking someone what their greatest weakness is, is a totally worthless and pointless question. I am embarrassed for your using it. It stems from the squeeshy-feeling feminine belief that people actually sit around and ASK themselves such inane questions! Further, it presupposes that a person has the self-awareness to honestly ask AND answer such a question to oneself both meaningfully and accurately. Psychologically, if a person really has the self-judgement to fairly ASK such a question, they probably have the capacity as well to have ADDRESSED and ACTED ON the issue long before they met you. A lot of people have no "greatest weakness" (which implies a RANGE of weaknesses!). A really sound person has no significant weaknesses at all, which leaves many good people in a real jam to try to think one up when asked. For an "interviewer" to ask such an idiotic pointless question out of a need to fill interview time and appear "thorough" and think it will actually yield any meaningful data which they can interpret properly, points to the problem people have in interview situations these days where totally unqualified pinholes such as yourself with absolutely no sense of how to really judge and evaluate people has to resort to some grade school level bullshit that probably came out of a book somewhere on "interview techniques."

Well, there's a first time for everything, I suppose. Yesterday was the first time I've asked that question and received an answer that by itself determined my decision about whether to give my imprimatur for hiring the candidate.

The man answered by in effect saying that he's been told that he can be difficult to work with. Upon hearing that, I abruptly ended the interview, asking if he had any questions of me. He didn't and that was that.

I wouldn't have had any further questions either. The fact that you ended the interview abruptly based solely on THAT probably showed him your company wasn't worth pursuing. While expecting the candidate to be totally prepared for anything, you showed him you were completely unprepared for many answers. That you took his reply as a deal-breaking negative is astounding. There are a million reasons why a person might say that (whether even true about the person or not) and be a good OR bad thing. Maybe one person who in the past was a slacker told him he was hard to work with because he was highly driven and perfectionistic demanding exceptional standards of himself! Maybe he just said that because lacking any real weaknesses he could really see and admit to for you, he just said it because he thought it sounded self-reflecting, very honest, self-perceptive and what he thought you wanted to hear. Maybe that answer came out of the same book the question came from on "How to prepare for an interview." No wonder jackals such as yourself spend so much time looking to fill positions and interviewing people-- -- so few people in HR really have any real skill in doing it effectively. It is just thrust upon them.

I have no idea what led the candidate to think that giving the answer he did could possibly aid and abet his assertion that he'd be a good person for us to hire,

And after ALL the trouble the guy had gone to jumping through loops to get that far in your circuitous maze probably for weeks, you didn't even bother to ask.

but insofar as he gave it, he must have his reasons. What I do know is that being hard to work with and lacking the judgment not to say that in an interview indicated the guy is too stupid and under seasoned for us to hire in any capacity.

So in other words, you as an interviewer are so shallow, that you are much less concerned with why the guy gave such a seemingly honest answer than you are that he didn't probably lie and give you a "good" approved, cookie-cutter answer; one carefully planned, picked and thought out in advance to be "just right" for the interview to tell you what you want to hear.

I was so astounded that I emailed the people who did the preliminary "phone screen" and early stage interviews on the guy to inquire how his abject inanity and unfitness for our firm did not come through when they spoke with him. I was and remain incredulous that the guy made it far enough through the interview process that he got to talk to me.

Abject inanity and unfitness. Sounds like your company is the Stepford Wives. Who do you work for, Google? Going for the "perfect fit," eh? Did it ever occur to you that all those other people saw something good in the guy and the problem was you? In an age where Diversity is supposed to the the alter of truth in everything, one thing you can say today about the modern corporation is that they want NO diversity of thinking and ideas! Only cookie-cutter fit ins. Just diversity in the simple, easy things like skin color that gets the Fed off their back. For all you really know, that man might have been the best thing that ever walked through your front door.

(Normally, I don't any longer do interviews, but the guy specifically expressed an interest in being part of my practice unit, and I have final say on all manager-and-above experienced hires who aim to it. It was rather serendipitous that I had to be part of the interview team considering him because the unique nature of my unit's work militates for "growing" people more so than finding them from outside the firm.)

And you should stay far, far away from interviewing anyone ever again. I'd love to hear what YOUR greatest weakness is? If you worked for me, not only would I not trust you to "grow" anyone into the well-groomed automaton position of brain-washed group-think you obviously have in mind for whomever you hire to assure they "fit in" properly, but I would probably demote or fire you for releasing a candidate on such thin, specious grounds with absolutely no idea what his answers even meant. I can get an 8th grader at minimum wage to do the "Pavlov's Dog" level of brain-dead interviewing you apparently conduct.

The guy could have said any number of things. Hell, he could have gone with one of the standard pat answers to that question, and I'd have at least counted his answer as neither strong nor weak, but as neutral. So with that as background, how did you answer the question I posed when you have been asked it?

Case closed. Is it any wonder this country is in sorry shape? You are a fucking idiot drone and the real question is how stupid must a corporation be these days to allow a pinhead as yourself to aspire to the level of being in the position of judging others? That must be your greatest weakness----- the illusion that you know what you are doing. Obviously all you need to get into your company is to do the very worst things-- -- -- give planned, rehearsed, cookie-cutter answers that actually reflect NOTHING of the real person being considered for the hire other than his willingness to CONFORM TO GROUP THINK. The problem with group think is that if it is even a little bit wrong, then, THE ENTIRE GROUP IS WRONG. Of course, being the fact that your company placed you in such authority, obviously I don't expect one watt of this to ever get through and make any sense to you-- -- -- you have been properly "grown" to fit your role as head imbecile.

Fuck you tube, I hate you soooooo much. Just when I am ready to ignore you, you go and show intellegence and a well thought agrument. Now I have to pay attention again! Fuck,Fuck,Fuck

 

[evenflow1969]

That's essentially one of the pat answers one expects to receive upon asking that question. If it or something like it is what I get in response, giving that sort of answer neither helps nor hinders the candidate's position with me.

You have to turn the question around and hit them back with it in a different form.

This is a part of rhetorical sophistry.

They are playing the game with you so you need to play it back on them.

Well, an interviewee may try that with me, but doing so is one of the ways to lessen the odds that I approve their receiving an offer. When I'm the interviewer, I'm not the one being tested, as it were. Candidates are well advised to keep that in mind at all times during their interview process. I suspect in thinking that way about the situation that I'm not rare among principals, most especially not among very senior principals (people in the top three tiers of a firm's management).

See that is where you are wrong. If you are looking at the best candidates they likey have options. You had better belive they are trying to figure out who they are going to work for in that interview. Money is not realy a thing for me any more. My house and cars are paid for, I owe nobody any thing. I could go years with out a pay check. Although mon ey is no longer the biggest concern or even realy a concern, feeling productive is a big concern. I am self employed and do well at it. How ever I am getting to old to be the butcher, the baker and the candle stick maker. I would like to concentrate on one thing and do it well. I find a place that wants to offer real value to their customers and operates with integrity I would likely be there till I die and because I like to succeed above all else, I will do one hell of a job. I will not even entertain the idea of a job that does not offer value and integrity to it's customers. You are scaring away some good applicants with that attitude. If you want applicants that have no where else to go, keep that attitude. If you want applicants that are in demand you may want to sell what you have to offer. If you are high up in the firm you are not likely looking for the average Joe in your interviews. If these are positions of senior management I would think you are looking for exceptional people. These kind of people typically have options.

See that is where you are wrong.

TY, but I'm sure I know better than you what is the right way to handle anything and everything having to do with the interview process at my firm. I don't know what makes you think you can be so presumptuous as to tell me that I'm wrong about such a thing.

If you are looking at the best candidates they likey have options.

If that's the case, s/he'd do well to work elsewhere because pulling a stunt like that with me or my colleagues makes it clear to us that our firm is not a good fit for them; thus s/he not a good fit for us.

Ya, you Know better! Great answer! Expected from some one who is of senior management. Obvously there is nothing left for you to learn or improve on. Here is what you forget. I did not just interview for you. I am not asking you for a job. I would not take it any way. I do not need to impress you. You put a thread on a political site where people argue all day. Did you think your senior management position prohibits some one from disagreeing with you? If I am not on your pay roll. You want to tell me how it goes you are going to need a better argument than " I think I know better". Do you want to poke a hole in my logic as explained. You can take the I am me so I know better and shove it up your fucking ass. If you are so far superior argue the logic!

Did you think your senior management position prohibits some one from disagreeing with you?

No. I think that one's not knowing in what firm I'm a managing partner is sufficient for one to eschew the presumptuousness of telling me I'm wrong about my firm's approach to and philosophy about hiring and interviewing.

Every one thinks that their situation is totaly different from every other. I do not care what feild you are in people with talent have options, other people in that feild are going to want to work with them. People with options are judging you in the interview as much as you are judging them. If you can not understand this I do not know what to say.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yesterday I had to do a phone interview of an experienced hire candidate who seeks to join our firm as a senior manager (one step below "entry level" partner). The interview was going along well and I decided to as one of the easiest "tough" questions there are: What's your greatest weakness?

For one thing, asking someone what their greatest weakness is, is a totally worthless and pointless question. I am embarrassed for your using it. It stems from the squeeshy-feeling feminine belief that people actually sit around and ASK themselves such inane questions! Further, it presupposes that a person has the self-awareness to honestly ask AND answer such a question to oneself both meaningfully and accurately. Psychologically, if a person really has the self-judgement to fairly ASK such a question, they probably have the capacity as well to have ADDRESSED and ACTED ON the issue long before they met you. A lot of people have no "greatest weakness" (which implies a RANGE of weaknesses!). A really sound person has no significant weaknesses at all, which leaves many good people in a real jam to try to think one up when asked. For an "interviewer" to ask such an idiotic pointless question out of a need to fill interview time and appear "thorough" and think it will actually yield any meaningful data which they can interpret properly, points to the problem people have in interview situations these days where totally unqualified pinholes such as yourself with absolutely no sense of how to really judge and evaluate people has to resort to some grade school level bullshit that probably came out of a book somewhere on "interview techniques."

Well, there's a first time for everything, I suppose. Yesterday was the first time I've asked that question and received an answer that by itself determined my decision about whether to give my imprimatur for hiring the candidate.

The man answered by in effect saying that he's been told that he can be difficult to work with. Upon hearing that, I abruptly ended the interview, asking if he had any questions of me. He didn't and that was that.

I wouldn't have had any further questions either. The fact that you ended the interview abruptly based solely on THAT probably showed him your company wasn't worth pursuing. While expecting the candidate to be totally prepared for anything, you showed him you were completely unprepared for many answers. That you took his reply as a deal-breaking negative is astounding. There are a million reasons why a person might say that (whether even true about the person or not) and be a good OR bad thing. Maybe one person who in the past was a slacker told him he was hard to work with because he was highly driven and perfectionistic demanding exceptional standards of himself! Maybe he just said that because lacking any real weaknesses he could really see and admit to for you, he just said it because he thought it sounded self-effacing, very honest, self-perceptive and what he thought you wanted to hear. Maybe that answer came out of the same book the question came from on "How to prepare for an interview." No wonder jackals such as yourself spend so much time looking to fill positions and interviewing people-- -- so few people in HR really have any real skill in doing it effectively. It is just thrust upon them.

I have no idea what led the candidate to think that giving the answer he did could possibly aid and abet his assertion that he'd be a good person for us to hire,

And after ALL the trouble the guy had gone to jumping through loops to get that far in your circuitous maze probably for weeks, you didn't even bother to ask.

but insofar as he gave it, he must have his reasons. What I do know is that being hard to work with and lacking the judgment not to say that in an interview indicated the guy is too stupid and under seasoned for us to hire in any capacity.

So in other words, you as an interviewer are so shallow, that you are much less concerned with why the guy gave such a seemingly honest answer than you are that he didn't probably lie and give you a "good" approved, cookie-cutter answer; one carefully planned, picked and thought out in advance to be "just right" for the interview to tell you what you want to hear.

I was so astounded that I emailed the people who did the preliminary "phone screen" and early stage interviews on the guy to inquire how his abject inanity and unfitness for our firm did not come through when they spoke with him. I was and remain incredulous that the guy made it far enough through the interview process that he got to talk to me.

Abject inanity and unfitness. Sounds like your company is the Stepford Wives. Who do you work for, Google? Going for the "perfect fit," eh? Did it ever occur to you that all those other people saw something good in the guy and the problem was you? In an age where Diversity is supposed to the the alter of truth in everything, one thing you can say today about the modern corporation is that they want NO diversity of thinking and ideas! Only cookie-cutter fit ins. Just diversity in the simple, easy things like skin color that gets the Fed off their back. For all you really know, that man might have been the best thing that ever walked through your front door.

(Normally, I don't any longer do interviews, but the guy specifically expressed an interest in being part of my practice unit, and I have final say on all manager-and-above experienced hires who aim to it. It was rather serendipitous that I had to be part of the interview team considering him because the unique nature of my unit's work militates for "growing" people more so than finding them from outside the firm.)

And you should stay far, far away from interviewing anyone ever again. I'd love to hear what YOUR greatest weakness is? If you worked for me, not only would I not trust you to "grow" anyone into the well-groomed automaton position of brain-washed group-think you obviously have in mind for whomever you hire to assure they "fit in" properly, but I would probably demote or fire you for releasing a candidate on such thin, specious grounds with absolutely no idea what his answers even meant. If you fuck up such easy things, what more important things must you get wrong every day? I can get an 8th grader at minimum wage to do the "Pavlov's Dog" level of brain-dead interviewing you apparently conduct and I'm sure it would save the company a great deal of money with no worse results.

The guy could have said any number of things. Hell, he could have gone with one of the standard pat answers to that question, and I'd have at least counted his answer as neither strong nor weak, but as neutral. So with that as background, how did you answer the question I posed when you have been asked it?

Case closed. Is it any wonder this country is in sorry shape? You are a fucking idiot drone and the real question is how stupid must a corporation be these days to allow a pinhead as yourself to aspire to the level of being in the position of judging others? That must be your greatest weakness----- the illusion that you know what you are doing. Obviously all you need to get into your company is to do the very worst things-- -- -- give planned, rehearsed, cookie-cutter answers that actually reflect NOTHING of the real person being considered for the hire other than his willingness to CONFORM TO GROUP THINK. The problem with group think is that if it is even a little bit wrong, then, THE ENTIRE GROUP IS WRONG. Of course, being the fact that your company placed you in such authority, obviously I don't expect one watt of this to ever get through and make any sense to you-- -- -- you have been properly "grown" to fit your role as head imbecile.

That you took his reply as a deal-breaking negative is astounding. There are a million reasons why a person might say that (whether even true about the person or not) and be a good OR bad thing. Maybe one person who in the past was a slacker told him he was hard to work with because he was highly driven and perfectionistic demanding exceptional standards of himself! Maybe he just said that because lacking any real weaknesses he could really see and admit to for you, he just said it because he thought it sounded self-effacing, very honest, self-perceptive and what he thought you wanted to hear. Maybe that answer came out of the same book the question came from on "How to prepare for an interview."

You seem keen to ignore the fact that between you and I, only one of us was part to the conversation with the guy and that one wasn't you. You've also managed to overlook the certitude of my having more awareness of the nature and content of the answer the guy gave than what I chose for brevity's sake to share in the OP.

Be that as it may, I'm not of a mind to defend my decision to you or anyone else here. I placed this thread in the Philosophy forum because it struck me as the closest fit, given the forum options from which one may choose, given that theme of my OP is the lack of good reasoning/judgment shown in the guy's answer.

 

[toobfreak]

Fuck you tube, I hate you soooooo much. Just when I am ready to ignore you, you go and show intellegence and a well thought agrument. Now I have to pay attention again! Fuck,Fuck,Fuck

You would be well-advised to always pay close attention to me. I could write a definitive book on this topic of evaluating people-- -- -- oh wait! I did!

 

[usmbguest5318]

Well, an interviewee may try that with me, but doing so is one of the ways to lessen the odds that I approve their receiving an offer. When I'm the interviewer, I'm not the one being tested, as it were. Candidates are well advised to keep that in mind at all times during their interview process. I suspect in thinking that way about the situation that I'm not rare among principals, most especially not among very senior principals (people in the top three tiers of a firm's management).

See that is where you are wrong. If you are looking at the best candidates they likey have options. You had better belive they are trying to figure out who they are going to work for in that interview. Money is not realy a thing for me any more. My house and cars are paid for, I owe nobody any thing. I could go years with out a pay check. Although mon ey is no longer the biggest concern or even realy a concern, feeling productive is a big concern. I am self employed and do well at it. How ever I am getting to old to be the butcher, the baker and the candle stick maker. I would like to concentrate on one thing and do it well. I find a place that wants to offer real value to their customers and operates with integrity I would likely be there till I die and because I like to succeed above all else, I will do one hell of a job. I will not even entertain the idea of a job that does not offer value and integrity to it's customers. You are scaring away some good applicants with that attitude. If you want applicants that have no where else to go, keep that attitude. If you want applicants that are in demand you may want to sell what you have to offer. If you are high up in the firm you are not likely looking for the average Joe in your interviews. If these are positions of senior management I would think you are looking for exceptional people. These kind of people typically have options.

See that is where you are wrong.

TY, but I'm sure I know better than you what is the right way to handle anything and everything having to do with the interview process at my firm. I don't know what makes you think you can be so presumptuous as to tell me that I'm wrong about such a thing.

If you are looking at the best candidates they likey have options.

If that's the case, s/he'd do well to work elsewhere because pulling a stunt like that with me or my colleagues makes it clear to us that our firm is not a good fit for them; thus s/he not a good fit for us.

Ya, you Know better! Great answer! Expected from some one who is of senior management. Obvously there is nothing left for you to learn or improve on. Here is what you forget. I did not just interview for you. I am not asking you for a job. I would not take it any way. I do not need to impress you. You put a thread on a political site where people argue all day. Did you think your senior management position prohibits some one from disagreeing with you? If I am not on your pay roll. You want to tell me how it goes you are going to need a better argument than " I think I know better". Do you want to poke a hole in my logic as explained. You can take the I am me so I know better and shove it up your fucking ass. If you are so far superior argue the logic!

Did you think your senior management position prohibits some one from disagreeing with you?

No. I think that one's not knowing in what firm I'm a managing partner is sufficient for one to eschew the presumptuousness of telling me I'm wrong about my firm's approach to and philosophy about hiring and interviewing.

Every one thinks that their situation is totaly different from every other. I do not care what feild you are in people with talent have options, other people in that feild are going to want to work with them. People with options are judging you in the interview as much as you are judging them. If you can not understand this I do not know what to say.

I do not care what feild you are in people with talent have options

I'm not denying that, not before and not now. As I wrote earlier, such individuals failing to receive an offer from my firm would do well to exercise their option to work elsewhere. I wish them well in doing so. I just know that my firm is not a good fit for them.