"Weakness" question in interviews

Mutata

rsutton wrote: »

I agree with you, sort of. An interview does not start out as a sales pitch, until and unless the interviewer determines they want to hire you.

Usually for me its been, sell a bit, determine whether or not they want you (sell yourself), they sell some more.:D

But, I'm also a bit jaded when it comes to interviews

bluejellorabbit

Luckily I've never had this question. I'm not sure how I'd answer it. I'd probably say something like "I feel like Randall in Clerks, and think this job would be great if it weren't for the ******* customers."

And then I wouldn't get hired. So I feel my best strategy is to hope I don't get this question.

Sheiko37

powerfool wrote: »

If they ask what I have done to fix a weakness, I respond: "Nothing. I'd rather leverage my strengths to maximum advantage like I have learned from so many other disciplines, like science, economics, etc."

Would you say you were weak in those disciplines before learning them? I see certifications under your name, were you weak in those domains before studying for each of them?

UncleB

Mutata wrote: »

Do you find this statement somewhat ironic? Asking people to avoid cliche answers when asking possibly the most cliche interview question?

And how is this different to asking: "Tell me a problem you've faced and how you solved it" ?

Pretty much all interviews questions are cliched by the fact they are used over and over again and are copied nearly universally to any job position.

A fairly common interview process will go along the line of:
1 - greetings, how did the journey go, did you find us ok etc? (ie try to set the candidate at ease.)
2 - overview of the interview process (what and how long) and reminded to hold questions back to the end
3 - ask candidate what they know of the role and company (are they here for the right role and have they researched us - this is a deal-breaker if they had ample time and didn't research us)
4 - we give overview from our perspective to fill in gaps / correct misinterpretations.

5 - run through background of candidate experience - typically this is to see if the candidate has lied on the CV and to probe into some areas that are relevant to the role offered.
6 - A selection of quick technical questions to see if the previous points claims stand up

7 - my preference - scenario based questions to see if a candidate can walk the walk for troubleshooting technique and handling unhappy customers / colleagues.
8 - mind games - can the client think outside the box. Questions like "how would you work out how many ping pong balls would fit inside a 747?" to make them explain how they approach a question where there is little chance to get a cliched response. I have a bagful of these questions and they reveal more about applicants than all the previous questions combined.

9 - sell yourself candidate! By now I've made my mind up on a score for the candidate but this is their chance to surprise me. These include:
"tell me about a weakness and how you overcame it"
"why should we give you the job"
etc

We will be making notes on your performance so far and frankly expect the usual crap that some gave previously as a canned response, but catch us with an unexpected breath of fresh air in being honest and revealing or showing flair with a humorous response will inevitably make us bump those scores up and remember you compared to the trail of mostly dull candidates we see for every position.

For most roles if you understand the technology reasonably well, show ability to learn and adapt then it is all about your personality and communication - these are what will get you the job. Why? Because skills can be taught but not attitude or personality.

thanks
Iain

OctalDump

I don't think interviews are worth much. It's a generally pretty poor way to choose staff, and too often they are run by people who have no training at all, or badly trained. They might trick themselves that they are competent because they read some popular 'management' tome, or ask 'clever' questions. But

This is why you get the same cliched questions. It's become more ritual than substance. They say this, you say that. And how well you play the game somehow means something about how good you will be as an employee.

Even the old chestnut of "Organisation fit" seems to be largely BS, with it usually being about how much the interviewer perceives the interviewee to be like themselves.

And in the end all this irrelevant crap, like the shoes you wear, your gender, height, weight, skin colour, accent, name still affects the outcome.