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

[usmbguest5318]

Why not simply take 10-15 minutes of a simulated run through of a project?
The “Weak” question means you don’t want to hire the candi.

Why not simply take 10-15 minutes of a simulated run through of a project?

That or something resembling it is among the things we do when circumstances allow and militate for it. The man who whom I interviewed didn't have circumstances that allowed us to set up an experiential interview apropos to the position he sought. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, he sought to on-board ASAP and we were of a mind to facilitate his doing so, so we went with a traditional interview approach.

 

[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.

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.

you expected us to give a cogent answer based on the provided information

All I expected of anyone here was that they answer the thread question found at the end of the OP.

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

The rest of the OP was simply contextual background I shared so folks would know what inspired me to ask that question.

 

[Indeependent]

Why not simply take 10-15 minutes of a simulated run through of a project?
The “Weak” question means you don’t want to hire the candi.

Why not simply take 10-15 minutes of a simulated run through of a project?

That or something resembling it is among the things we do when circumstances allow and militate for it. The man who whom I interviewed didn't have circumstances that allowed us to set up an experiential interview apropos to the position he sought. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, he sought to on-board ASAP and we were of a mind to facilitate his doing so, so we went with a traditional interview approach.

Anyone who cannot conduct this type of interview on the phone in the Smart Device Age should not be interviewing anyone on the phone period.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

did you want him to bullshit you? I thought his was a good answer and you could have followed up with, "why"?

 

[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.

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.

you expected us to give a cogent answer based on the provided information

All I expected of anyone here was that they answer the thread question found at the end of the OP.

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

The rest of the OP was simply contextual background I shared so folks would know what inspired me to ask that question.

You see that much like that interview, you expected us to full fill your expectations. What you did not realize that we are not interviewing and do not give a shit about your expectations. Instead you got judged by the audience replying. As I pointed out to you people with options are judging you as much or more than you are judging them. You see we do not give one shit what your expectations were. Why because we have options. We do not need your approval. The response you are receiving here pretty much proves my logic. Get over your upper management self and start to realize you may not be all that you thought you were. You want what you expected go tell the fucking loser yes men you have hired to give it to you. They will, if they are capable. Mean while your compitition is making a sales pitch to real talent.

 

[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

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.

Look

Explain the job.
Ask what you have to offer the position
Ask for a review of accomplishments
Provide relevant hypotheticals and ask how you would respond

Save the silly psychological questions

 

[Compost]

My greatest weakness? Utter impatience with pathetically transparent questions from pompous pedantics flexing their paltry power.

 

[rightwinger]

My greatest weakness? Utter impatience with pathetically transparent questions from pompous pedantics flexing their paltry power.

Exactly

The guy in the OP basically told the interviewer to fuck off

Why would he want the job?

 

[Darkwind]

I was asked that question once in an interview for a job that I was exploring, more than trying to land. I sometimes get bored with My job and go on these little jaunts to see if there is a better opportunity available.

My reply was pretty straightforward.

"I'm sorry, I thought this interview was in response to a specific job and the strengths and skills I could bring to that job. I see we are both just wasting each others time."

I shook hands and left.

Thankfully, I've never been asked such a question when I really needed the job.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Why not simply take 10-15 minutes of a simulated run through of a project?
The “Weak” question means you don’t want to hire the candi.

Why not simply take 10-15 minutes of a simulated run through of a project?

That or something resembling it is among the things we do when circumstances allow and militate for it. The man who whom I interviewed didn't have circumstances that allowed us to set up an experiential interview apropos to the position he sought. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, he sought to on-board ASAP and we were of a mind to facilitate his doing so, so we went with a traditional interview approach.

Anyone who cannot conduct this type of interview on the phone in the Smart Device Age should not be interviewing anyone on the phone period.

Obviously, "simulated run through of a project" means something different to you than it does to me.

I won't again make the mistake of replying to you without clarifying terms. Ciao.

 

[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.

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.

you expected us to give a cogent answer based on the provided information

All I expected of anyone here was that they answer the thread question found at the end of the OP.

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

The rest of the OP was simply contextual background I shared so folks would know what inspired me to ask that question.

You see that much like that interview, you expected us to full fill your expectations. What you did not realize that we are not interviewing and do not give a shit about your expectations. Instead you got judged by the audience replying. As I pointed out to you people with options are judging you as much or more than you are judging them. You see we do not give one shit what your expectations were. Why because we have options. We do not need your approval. The response you are receiving here pretty much proves my logic. Get over your upper management self and start to realize you may not be all that you thought you were. You want what you expected go tell the fucking loser yes men you have hired to give it to you. They will, if they are capable. Mean while your compitition is making a sales pitch to real talent.

 

[usmbguest5318]

My greatest weakness? Utter impatience with pathetically transparent questions from pompous pedantics flexing their paltry power.

Exactly

The guy in the OP basically told the interviewer to fuck off

Why would he want the job?

The guy in the OP basically told the interviewer to fuck off

Maybe that was in his mind, and maybe it wasn't. What I know is that he approached us asking for an opportunity to interview for a position we weren't seeking to fill. We agreed to consider him because hiring him appeared initially to be an opportunity that fell into our laps, as it were, and we were thus willing to make a place for him.

 

[Indeependent]

Why not simply take 10-15 minutes of a simulated run through of a project?
The “Weak” question means you don’t want to hire the candi.

Why not simply take 10-15 minutes of a simulated run through of a project?

That or something resembling it is among the things we do when circumstances allow and militate for it. The man who whom I interviewed didn't have circumstances that allowed us to set up an experiential interview apropos to the position he sought. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, he sought to on-board ASAP and we were of a mind to facilitate his doing so, so we went with a traditional interview approach.

Anyone who cannot conduct this type of interview on the phone in the Smart Device Age should not be interviewing anyone on the phone period.

Obviously, "simulated run through of a project" means something different to you than it does to me.

I won't again make the mistake of replying to you without clarifying terms. Ciao.

You don't seem to be very popular with quite a number of people here.
What it comes down to is you had a vacuous "feeling" and you don't want to admit to such.

 

[evenflow1969]

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

you expected us to give a cogent answer based on the provided information

All I expected of anyone here was that they answer the thread question found at the end of the OP.

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

The rest of the OP was simply contextual background I shared so folks would know what inspired me to ask that question.

You see that much like that interview, you expected us to full fill your expectations. What you did not realize that we are not interviewing and do not give a shit about your expectations. Instead you got judged by the audience replying. As I pointed out to you people with options are judging you as much or more than you are judging them. You see we do not give one shit what your expectations were. Why because we have options. We do not need your approval. The response you are receiving here pretty much proves my logic. Get over your upper management self and start to realize you may not be all that you thought you were. You want what you expected go tell the fucking loser yes men you have hired to give it to you. They will, if they are capable. Mean while your compitition is making a sales pitch to real talent.

You do realize those guys are laghing at you right? Have you even had one person show agreement with you?

 

[deanrd]

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?

When ever asked that question, always answer with something positive.

Example:

What's your greatest weakness?:

I never give up.

I'm always focused on the issue. Some say too focused.

Some say my job means too much to me.

I'll give up my vacation time for important assignments.

I've been told I push my coworkers to get the job done. But I have a hard time believing that because I always work so well with others. I think I'm just highly motivated.

And so on.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

you expected us to give a cogent answer based on the provided information

All I expected of anyone here was that they answer the thread question found at the end of the OP.

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

The rest of the OP was simply contextual background I shared so folks would know what inspired me to ask that question.

You see that much like that interview, you expected us to full fill your expectations. What you did not realize that we are not interviewing and do not give a shit about your expectations. Instead you got judged by the audience replying. As I pointed out to you people with options are judging you as much or more than you are judging them. You see we do not give one shit what your expectations were. Why because we have options. We do not need your approval. The response you are receiving here pretty much proves my logic. Get over your upper management self and start to realize you may not be all that you thought you were. You want what you expected go tell the fucking loser yes men you have hired to give it to you. They will, if they are capable. Mean while your compitition is making a sales pitch to real talent.

You do realize those guys are laghing at you right? Have you even had one person show agreement with you?

You do realize those guys are laghing at you right?

You do realize approbation from the folks here isn't something I sought, right? There is nothing in the OP for folks to approve or disapprove in any way that matters. I asked how people answer a particular question and some folks here felt it necessary to pen responses about me. That interview question I asked wasn't about me and neither is this thread, as far as I'm concerned -- and seeing as it's my thread, that's all that matters to me. Folks can answer the question I asked or they can not do so; either way I find out something I wanted to know, which was the point of my asking the question.


As I said:

[The guy wanted] to start ASAP because his wife had taken a new job for which his family had moved and his job wasn't portable.

[The guy] approached us asking for an opportunity to interview for a position we weren't seeking to fill. We agreed to consider him because hiring him appeared initially to be an opportunity that fell into our laps, as it were, and we were thus willing to make a place for him.

One member here introduced all sorts of abstractions, but the fact is they are worthless musings to someone who has no current job and seeks to obtain one that allows them to resume the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed (see "Associate principal/Senior project leader" at that link).

The fact is with the answer he gave, the interviewee showed he's not qualified for the job he sought, not by dint of his industry-specific, general business and economics skills, training and experience, for we'd have never considered interviewing him were we not of a mind that he had those "ducks in order," but by his temperament.

• Handling the "What Are Your Weaknesses" Question in a Job Interview
  
• Here's What An Interviewer Really Means When They Ask 'What Is Your Greatest Weakness?'
  
• What to say when an interviewer asks, 'What's your biggest weakness?'

To be sure, when interviewing candidates for certain non-client-facing positions, I doubt anyone asks that question. The mail clerks and other workers whose jobs call for them mainly to "put square pegs in square holes" for instance, may not be asked that question. The position he sought isn't a "blue collar" one and we weren't going to interview or treat him as though it were. In management consulting, the best subject matter KSAs aren't worth a damn if one's temperament isn't acceptable.

The fact of the matter is that over the course of the interview process for all revenue-side employees, a candidate is going to have to answer several so-called "brain teaser" questions and they're going to have not "screw the pooch" on every single one. It's a big boon if someone "hits it out of the park" with those questions, but doing so isn't among the expectations interviewers, I, have because everyone knows that nobody likes those kinds of questions. Members here don't have to like that and neither does the guy whom I rejected and neither do they and he have to like that I asked the question I did; however, they and he will have to find their several-hundred-thousand-dollar-a-year plus-fine-benefits-and-perqs job from a different employer than my firm, be it in management consulting or some other industry.

 

[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?

When ever asked that question, always answer with something positive.

Example:

What's your greatest weakness?:

I never give up.

I'm always focused on the issue. Some say too focused.

Some say my job means too much to me.

I'll give up my vacation time for important assignments.

I've been told I push my coworkers to get the job done. But I have a hard time believing that because I always work so well with others. I think I'm just highly motivated.

And so on.

I've been told I push my coworkers to get the job done. But I have a hard time believing that because I always work so well with others.

Don't construe the two behaviors a being mutually exclusive or as indirectly proportional to one another. Motivating colleagues to produce high quality results on-time and on-budget and working well with others both are two separate but related and required abilities of people who make good managers/leaders. How one balances and deploys those qualities is what distinguishes good and excellent managers/leaders from mediocre and poor ones. There is no good manager/leader who does not push his/her staff, and push hard, and also not work well with them and others. For professionals, the "bar" moves in only one direction, up.

 

[Dale Smith]

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?

I have had that question asked to me and my answer was "I don't accept setbacks with grace when I am working on a project. I reflect back more on my failure to deliver than I do about my successes even if the failure for the project had nothing to do with my efforts because maybe I could have changed the outcome via sheer will and where my strategic error occurred. I am not a graceful loser".

 

[rightwinger]

My greatest weakness? Utter impatience with pathetically transparent questions from pompous pedantics flexing their paltry power.

Exactly

The guy in the OP basically told the interviewer to fuck off

Why would he want the job?

The guy in the OP basically told the interviewer to fuck off

Maybe that was in his mind, and maybe it wasn't. What I know is that he approached us asking for an opportunity to interview for a position we weren't seeking to fill. We agreed to consider him because hiring him appeared initially to be an opportunity that fell into our laps, as it were, and we were thus willing to make a place for him.

Sorry

But you suck as an interviewer

For God's sake....ask relevant questions
Don't Google "Top ten interview questions"

 

[Lewdog]

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.

Yep, that's the answer I usually give, or one of two others.

#2. I always feel I could have done a better job, and don't settle for just success from a project, but instead look at ways I could improve on the next project.

#3. I put customer service, and the happiness of the customer, over anything else as long as I'm staying within my capacity to do so by company policy. There is not a better advertisement for a company than word-of-mouth from a satisfied customer.