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

[koshergrl]

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?

Gads please stop.

 

[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-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.

On this guy you were likely right not to hire him. In one instance this worked out. As a policy though, do you realy want to agrue the logic I have presented. You must ask your self how many superior applicants over the years you have lost due to this question. How many top qualified people took another job due to your feeling that you are doing the only judging.

 

[evenflow1969]

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!

Continue to spel,. out your position as you just did and I will at least pay attention. Can not guarantee I will always agree, but you will get my undivided attention while reading.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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?

good lord, you got your first honest answer to that question, ever.


No one gives an honest answer to that ignorant fucking question.


call him back and hire him. Why? b/c you know you have an honest worker that will give it to you straight.

 

[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?

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.

Asking....What is your greatest weakness
Shows the interviewer is either lazy or just an idiot

 

[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.

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.

I'm sure you are not. You made it quite clear that you ended the interview based solely on that one unexpected answer alone. I didn't think anything I said would get through to you. Your answer really is LAME because you expected us to give a cogent answer based on the provided information, but when the finger points at YOU, suddenly it is the typical bullshit "you simply don't know enough about my company." Never mind the fact that I've written one of the definitive books on the science of evaluating people and personality, character, skills and drives. I've forgotten more about how to read and judge people than you will ever know. Of course I can't prove any of that to the many sorrowful USMBers here that would challenge that without giving away personal information so you can choose to think I'm full of it if you wish (which I have no doubt many will). You may be right, maybe the guy wasn't a good hire and it is all moot now, but from reading your post, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW, because his interview put the burden on you to decide when it was much easier to just pass on the guy and move on to someone else who slides right in with a cookie cutter fit in Vaseline with no questions that might require YOU to take any responsibility for really judging the hire because that might lead to your being BLAMED if later on, he should not work out. Typical problem with company HR people these days. They hire "safe as possible" looking to protect THEIR job. And no, I don't need to know the particulars of your exact company, you've already provided enough.

 

[Two Thumbs]

what's your greatest weakness;

I'm to honest
I show up way early for work and like to stay late
I'm a perfectionist

 

[evenflow1969]

what's your greatest weakness;

I'm to honest
I show up way early for work and like to stay late
I'm a perfectionist

Next time I am asked it I am going to answer completely honestly. " If I had one I sure as hell would not tell You! Next question please!"

 

[Two Thumbs]

what's your greatest weakness;
honest list section

I do like to show up early, so I can get more coffee in me so that I don't go off on someone
I like to work alone, b/c I have real anger issues
I will surf the net on your time.
I eat a lot of beans and greens, so my farts have some serious stank

 

[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.

On this guy you were likely right not to hire him. In one instance this worked out. As a policy though, do you realy want to agrue the logic I have presented. You must ask your self how many superior applicants over the years you have lost due to this question. How many top qualified people took another job due to your feeling that you are doing the only judging.

You must ask your self how many superior applicants over the years you have lost due to this question.

No, because I already know the answer to that question.

 

[rightwinger]

My greatest weakness?

I guess I just am too hard a worker

 

[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-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.

On this guy you were likely right not to hire him. In one instance this worked out. As a policy though, do you realy want to agrue the logic I have presented. You must ask your self how many superior applicants over the years you have lost due to this question. How many top qualified people took another job due to your feeling that you are doing the only judging.

You must ask your self how many superior applicants over the years you have lost due to this question.

No, because I already know the answer to that question.

Wow, I did not now you were a mind reader. Can you read mine right now?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Don't look for me come 4:45, I'm clearing a path to the exit

 

[OldLady]

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.

Asking....What is your greatest weakness
Shows the interviewer is either lazy or just an idiot

It's sophistry that's been institutionalized. It's a game. Ask a question and sit back and see how clever the interviewee is in coming up with a non answer. Xelor responded with a short essay which showed thoughtfulness and completely skirted the question. Some people (like me) might make a joke out of it. I don't know what I'd say. It's not the kind of question that teaches a prospective employer much, imo, since NO ONE is going to tell the truth (except the hapless guy Xelor just interviewed).

I suppose Xelor's right that it doesn't show a lot of common sense, but I do admire the guy's guts.

 

[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?

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?

good lord, you got your first honest answer to that question, ever.


No one gives an honest answer to that ignorant fucking question.


call him back and hire him. Why? b/c you know you have an honest worker that will give it to you straight.

Not happening. I won't advocate for hiring anyone whom I know by their own admission have by their prior superiors been told they are difficult to work with. As I already stated:

"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."
​

FWIW, I've had other candidates give honest answers to that question that also are not self-deprecating. I shared what was my "solution" was for overcoming the dilemma that question poses. The handful of other honest and inventive responses/approaches I've heard aren't the same one I used, but neither were they pat answers.

The purposes of that question are:

• To get a sense of how the person, on their feet, handles "sticky" situations.
• To get a sense of one's judgment.
• To get a sense of one's innovativeness.
• To get a sense of one's diplomacy skill.

One can "punt" the question by offering one of the pat answers that depicts a trait normally considered as a positive and instead depicts it as a negative. Doing that won't earn one any points, but neither will it cost points for though though they are "pablum," they are at least politic answers. Alternatively, one can tackle the question head on in an innovative way that both answers it while also maintaining the "solvency" of one's argument that one is indeed deserving of an offer. Doing that with aplomb will absolutely earn one points.

Unless one answers that question by sharing something that is, as the guy of whom I've written expressed, truly a negative attribute, one is unlikely to gain or lose an interviewer's approbation. As I indicated in my OP, never before have I actually come across someone who denigrated themselves by attesting to being one of the things no employer particularly wants to see in anyone it hires.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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?

good lord, you got your first honest answer to that question, ever.


No one gives an honest answer to that ignorant fucking question.


call him back and hire him. Why? b/c you know you have an honest worker that will give it to you straight.

Not happening. I won't advocate for hiring anyone whom I know by their own admission have by their prior superiors been told they are difficult to work with. As I already stated:

"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."
​

FWIW, I've had other candidates give honest answers to that question that also are not self-deprecating. I shared what was my "solution" was for overcoming the dilemma that question poses. The handful of other honest and inventive responses/approaches I've heard aren't the same one I used, but neither were they pat answers.

The purposes of that question are:

• To get a sense of how the person, on their feet, handles "sticky" situations.
• To get a sense of one's judgment.
• To get a sense of one's innovativeness.
• To get a sense of one's diplomacy skill.

One can "punt" the question by offering one of the pat answers that depicts a trait normally considered as a positive and instead depicts it as a negative. Doing that won't earn one any points, but neither will it cost points for though though they are "pablum," they are at least politic answers. Alternatively, one can tackle the question head on in an innovative way that both answers it while also maintaining the "solvency" of one's argument that one is indeed deserving of an offer. Doing that with aplomb will absolutely earn one points.

Unless one answers that question by sharing something that is, as the guy of whom I've written expressed, truly a negative attribute, one is unlikely to gain or lose an interviewer's approbation. As I indicated in my OP, never before have I actually come across someone who denigrated themselves by attesting to being one of the things no employer particularly wants to see in anyone it hires.

so you actually wanted him to lie.

awesome

 

[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?

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.

Asking....What is your greatest weakness
Shows the interviewer is either lazy or just an idiot

It's sophistry that's been institutionalized. It's a game. Ask a question and sit back and see how clever the interviewee is in coming up with a non answer. Xelor responded with a short essay which showed thoughtfulness and completely skirted the question. Some people (like me) might make a joke out of it. I don't know what I'd say. It's not the kind of question that teaches a prospective employer much, imo, since NO ONE is going to tell the truth (except the hapless guy Xelor just interviewed).

I suppose Xelor's right that it doesn't show a lot of common sense, but I do admire the guy's guts.

Some people (like me) might make a joke out of it.

That is a fine and effective way to parry that question. A well formed joke would in all likelihood earn you points. It certainly would were I the interviewer.

It's a game. Ask a question and sit back and see how clever the interviewee is in coming up with a non answer.

It is something of a game. In my industry, however, the one thing of which one can be certain is that clients will sooner or later put one in an awkward position that must be addressed right then and there. Our people who are have a manger or higher title will have to deal with it, and being able to do so with aplomb -- whatever that means given one's style and personality. Mostly, I just want to learn what is the candidate's particular style for dealing with such situations. There is rarely, if ever, any single right way to do so, but compromising oneself or the firm is always among the wrong ways to handle it.

 

[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.

On this guy you were likely right not to hire him. In one instance this worked out. As a policy though, do you realy want to agrue the logic I have presented. You must ask your self how many superior applicants over the years you have lost due to this question. How many top qualified people took another job due to your feeling that you are doing the only judging.

You must ask your self how many superior applicants over the years you have lost due to this question.

No, because I already know the answer to that question.

Wow, I did not now you were a mind reader. Can you read mine right now?

Can you read mine right now?

Insofar as I have no will to try, now or at any other time, no.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I do admire the guy's guts.

Yeah. Okay. I'll give him that. I'll note to that one's being adept risk manages and having the sense to exercise a prudent degree of aversion to taking risks that need not be taken are very important qualities/skills that even junior level (below partner) managers personnel in my firm must exhibit consistently.

 

[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?

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?

good lord, you got your first honest answer to that question, ever.


No one gives an honest answer to that ignorant fucking question.


call him back and hire him. Why? b/c you know you have an honest worker that will give it to you straight.

Not happening. I won't advocate for hiring anyone whom I know by their own admission have by their prior superiors been told they are difficult to work with. As I already stated:

"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."
​

FWIW, I've had other candidates give honest answers to that question that also are not self-deprecating. I shared what was my "solution" was for overcoming the dilemma that question poses. The handful of other honest and inventive responses/approaches I've heard aren't the same one I used, but neither were they pat answers.

The purposes of that question are:

• To get a sense of how the person, on their feet, handles "sticky" situations.
• To get a sense of one's judgment.
• To get a sense of one's innovativeness.
• To get a sense of one's diplomacy skill.

One can "punt" the question by offering one of the pat answers that depicts a trait normally considered as a positive and instead depicts it as a negative. Doing that won't earn one any points, but neither will it cost points for though though they are "pablum," they are at least politic answers. Alternatively, one can tackle the question head on in an innovative way that both answers it while also maintaining the "solvency" of one's argument that one is indeed deserving of an offer. Doing that with aplomb will absolutely earn one points.

Unless one answers that question by sharing something that is, as the guy of whom I've written expressed, truly a negative attribute, one is unlikely to gain or lose an interviewer's approbation. As I indicated in my OP, never before have I actually come across someone who denigrated themselves by attesting to being one of the things no employer particularly wants to see in anyone it hires.

so you actually wanted him to lie.

awesome

There are multiple acceptable ways to handle that question without lying. I shared the one I used and I discussed the "punt" option that other members have stated they'd use. OldLady shared another (How do you respond to the interview question, "What is your greatest weakness?").

How you managed, from my remarks in post 75 and the approach shared regarding how I handled the question, to infer that I want a candidate to lie in response to that question is beyond me, but sure as cats have climbing gear, you did...