[NotanOriginalName]

If someone asks you want your greatest weakness is,what do you say?

[immortal]

You should never reveal your weakness in an interview, if that question was directed towards me I would say that "I need to improve my soft skills", it means that you're neither too weak nor too strong in it.

[imatfaal]

I interview a lot of people - most of the time there isn't any correct answer to almost any question; just a method of delivery, an ability to show thought and reason, and to avoid interview cliches like "soft skills" Identifying weakness in a a project is often as difficult as recognizing strength and the inability to acknowledge any weakness in oneself can be viewed as counterproductive and faux faults are even worse ("I am perhaps too attentive to detail..." "I just love working in teams so much..." "I am a workaholic... " old gentleman turns green)

talking about oneself is difficult for many people and it is very easy to use hackneyed phrases that one has picked up in the worse places - often reality tv. Phrases from The Apprentice etc often crop up and elicit poor responses from both devotees of the programme and those who have never seen a second of the garbage. If you have relaxed enough, but not too much, then most questions become easy.

Nevertheless honesty is not good with the weakness bit - I once found myself in a long lunch that had morphed into an impromptu interview, and in a desire to appear insightful and self-aware I was a little to honest with this very question. In the drunken logic that everyone has weaknesses in a certain role and that it must be better that I acknowledge them and can guard against them. Unfortunately one of the things I raised hadn't occurred to my interlocutor and once it was in the open he saw it as terminal.

[Phi for All]

Personally, the answer I use is that I love research and find that I have to put a limit on time spent on it. A little research is always essential, but you never know if more time spent will give you a better return on the investment. I always like more information so I adjust for this weakness by forcing myself to stop at regular intervals and analyze what I've got and decide if it's enough in that situation.

I think it shows some good qualities and addresses a fear many employers have these days. And it's quite true. There have been times I've spent researching something where I just kept digging deeper and eventually found a nugget of information that made it all worth it, and other times where I didn't find that nugget so all that time seemed like a waste (at least to my employer).

imatfaal, on 25 January 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

I once found myself in a long lunch that had morphed into an impromptu interview, and in a desire to appear insightful and self-aware I was a little to honest with this very question. In the drunken logic that everyone has weaknesses in a certain role and that it must be better that I acknowledge them and can guard against them. Unfortunately one of the things I raised hadn't occurred to my interlocutor and once it was in the open he saw it as terminal.

I remember that interview. I asked you your greatest weakness and you said you didn't take office pranks very well, and had been know to spray a few suspect's cubicles with the Uzi you keep clipped to the underside of your center desk drawer.

[Tres Juicy]

Oddly, I have just taken an interveiw where the guy appeared to have come straight from "the aprentice" buzz word masterclass

If I hear the word "synergy" one more time today.....

[D H]

imatfaal, on 25 January 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

I interview a lot of people - most of the time there isn't any correct answer to almost any question; just a method of delivery, an ability to show thought and reason, and to avoid interview cliches like "soft skills"

Same here (I interview quite a few people). I almost never ask that stupid interview question, "What is your greatest weakness?"

I try to ask questions for which the interviewee does not have a canned answer.

[ajb]

Phi for All, on 25 January 2012 - 04:49 PM, said:

Personally, the answer I use is that I love research and find that I have to put a limit on time spent on it. A little research is always essential, but you never know if more time spent will give you a better return on the investment. I always like more information so I adjust for this weakness by forcing myself to stop at regular intervals and analyze what I've got and decide if it's enough in that situation.

I think it shows some good qualities and addresses a fear many employers have these days. And it's quite true. There have been times I've spent researching something where I just kept digging deeper and eventually found a nugget of information that made it all worth it, and other times where I didn't find that nugget so all that time seemed like a waste (at least to my employer).

I have answered that question in a similar way.

I have said something like: I can be too focused on one idea or method and spend a lot of time trying to force it to work, where I might have been better off trying another approach earlier on. I recognise this and as my research skills and experience grow I find my self more able to see the wider picture.

No idea if what I said is any good, maybe too honest.

[D H]

I once answered with something along the lines of: Being short and snippy when asked stupid questions such as what is my greatest weakness.

I did get the offer.

[Tres Juicy]

"I'm just too F#%king AWESOME!!"

Is not an acceptable answer to this

[ajb]

D H, on 26 January 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

I once answered with something along the lines of: Being short and snippy when asked stupid questions such as what is my greatest weakness.

Well science is all about posing the right questions, that is the ones that have a good answer, not distracting silly questions that have little bearing on anything important.

Maybe I will take your advice.

[D H]

ajb, on 26 January 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

Maybe I will take your advice.

You might want to rethink that. I went into that particular interview to see if I wanted to work for that company. My employer at that time was on the verge of being bought out by a larger company. We were told not to pass this information along to anyone. I obeyed that mandate. However, nobody told me that I couldn't go on a job interview with that potential buyer. I needed to see if I was going to stick around should the deal go through. Fortunately, being a small part of a big company, the group with whom I interviewed didn't know that their corporate masters were about to engulf and devour my corporate masters.

I didn't really care if I did or did not get the offer. I wanted the offer as an ego boost, but getting the offer was not the main reason I was interviewing. (I eventually did get the offer, but I did not accept it.) Besides asking canned questions, this interviewer made another huge gaffe: He talked money first. I pretty much got the answer I wanted when he gave a figure that was 80% of my salary at that time.

This post has been edited by D H: 26 January 2012 - 10:26 AM

[ajb]

D H, on 26 January 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

You might want to rethink that.

Okay

[Phi for All]

ajb, on 26 January 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

I have answered that question in a similar way.

I have said something like: I can be too focused on one idea or method and spend a lot of time trying to force it to work, where I might have been better off trying another approach earlier on. I recognise this and as my research skills and experience grow I find my self more able to see the wider picture.

No idea if what I said is any good, maybe too honest.

I like it. By picking a weakness that's usually detectable only in hindsight, you set up a situation where the interviewer may even defend your actions, consciously or subconsciously. Sometimes forcing something to work is the most effective use of your time, and you often never know if another fifteen minutes might save you having to start from scratch on another approach. These are judgement calls that either make you the hero or the zero, and everyone has been in those situations before. I think the desire to improve oneself is what interviewers are looking for here.

[Xittenn]

imatfaal, on 25 January 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

most of the time there isn't any correct answer to almost any question; just a method of delivery, an ability to show thought and reason

I like this train of thought the best. Even if an employer is seeking something particular, a well thought out answer will always motivate an employer in the right direction. Note also, as imatfaal points out, don't use cliches, because these are not very well thought out.

Personally I tell the truth because most employers need to know what my problems are. I straight up say, I can have difficulty working with others, because I am emotional and my position over most others--including other management--is not well liked. That said, for the jobs I am applying for, my skill sets make these points usually moot and I am simply asked to keep working on it, which I do.