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

My greatest weakness?

Being obsessed with doing a great job even if it means working nights and weekends at the expense of my family.

"You're hired!"
 
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.
I didn't see any mention of leader/manager in the original question.

I know from personal experience that you can motivate your co-workers without being a manager. Encouraging words like "Let's get his done first" can work wonders.
 
I tell them my greatest weakness is having to work for a company like yours to maintain a lifestyle that I am comfortable with...

That's what it comes down to

I am willing to sell out my integrity to answer your stupid fucking question
Hey...its a paycheck
 
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.
I didn't see any mention of leader/manager in the original question.

I know from personal experience that you can motivate your co-workers without being a manager. Encouraging words like "Let's get his done first" can work wonders.
I didn't see any mention of leader/manager in the original question.

Did you read the OP?

First sentence in the OP:
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).
I know from personal experience that you can motivate your co-workers without being a manager.
That is true. That it is is why I wrote "manager/leader."
 
I tell them my greatest weakness is having to work for a company like yours to maintain a lifestyle that I am comfortable with...

That's what it comes down to

I am willing to sell out my integrity to answer your stupid fucking question
Hey...its a paycheck
That leaves the interviewer and interviewed equal integrity.
They normally don't take it as such...Probably why I am still self employed 30 years later...
 
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.


Yep, those are the officially prescribed cookie cutter answers. Greatest weakness? I'm too thorough. I come in early and stay late working free to do a better job. I took a pay cut to save the company money. . . . It all sounds good and goes over well with HR staff looking for good conformers and interview game-players who know how to get in under the radar. The question is always: What will these people REALLY be like as employees after they are hired? A company's greatest successes come from the Innovators who know how to solve problems by thinking outside the box; how unfortunate that showing innovation or free thinking during a hiring interview will likely never get you even hired as you try to get past the dullards charged with interviewing to actually get to the people who would recognize and appreciate your creative skills.

The problem in America today is that current corporate thinking is that all of the "bright minds" with the good ideas are all at the home central office being paid 6 figures and they always think they know what's best as they go out on their extended lunches being overpaid and dictate company policy to the other 99% of the company whom they expect to follow blindly without question like so many automatons with no brains. If you are out in the "work force," they don't want to hear from you, you couldn't possibly have any worthwhile input; just shut up and do your job and don't ask questions or you will be bumped. Is it any wonder America struggles in many ways to keep up with the rest of the world------ 80% of our brightest minds and best ideas are never even used.
 
Last edited:
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 absolutley dispise that question. You are begging to be lied to by asking it! The reality is that any one with half a brain would not tell some one their greatest weakness as it opens one up for exploitation. I almost feel as though they are trying to find out how good of a liar I am. Then I imagine, that if my lie was good enough and they will hire me and expect me to lie while working and fucking miserable I would be in a job that required lying all day. So I look for the most truethfull answer I can give them on the subject. I answer with " I am not very good a taking compliments for a job well done as I feel that I should not even be here if it was not a job well done. I certainly prefer bonuses and raises over accolades." I would have to be in dire straights to take the job. Unless the situation was nothing like I expected from the question, I likely would not be there long. I would be continually looking for an employer that I felt was more interested in the truth than putting some one on the spot!

PS. I am hoping that an offer comes from some one who did not ask the question. Assuming similar pay I will take the job from the interviewer that did not ask that question first.
The reality is that any one with half a brain would not tell some one their greatest weakness as it opens one up for exploitation. I almost feel as though they are trying to find out how good of a liar I am.
No fair interviewer asks that question for that reason.



It is one of the most common interview questions of all.
 
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.
Is that the same as gas?
 
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.
Is that the same as gas?
More like being an arrogant ass.
A firm that assigns a phone interview that isn’t an appropriate phone interview, someone is derailing something.
 
My greatest weakness?

I just work too hard. My old supervisor would drive by the office at 2:30 in the morning and see me still at my desk. He would have to drag me out and send me home. I refused to take weekends and holidays off because there was too much work to do. I don't know my kids names and think they play some kind of sport. I missed my mothers funeral last year because it took place during the work day. I never take sick days and once fixed my own broken arm while sitting at my desk, I work through lunch and consider multitasking my greatest skill
 
I have an entirely different spin on this whole situation, being an emotionally sensitive type.

When you apply for a job, it is about the most vulnerable that a person can be. The power is all with the prospective employer. You get all gussied up and go to sit before a total stranger to be judged on one of the most important aspects of your life--knowledge, experience and the ability to do a job well. You are going, hat in hand, begging for work. As far as a power imbalance, it's about as close to the helplessness of being sold into slavery as most of us will ever come. It is all up to the decision of the prospective employer.

In this case, the guy is peremptorily rejected by the man with the power, who is sitting by a pool in the Bahamas, because he honestly answered a question. And the man at poolside not only crushed the guy beneath his heel, he continued with a vituperative rant about just what a moron he was:
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.

So the nightmare of interviewing for a job and being rejected is compounded with the reminder that the interviewer is also judging our character, our intelligence and whatever else he sees fit to poke his nose into.

This story seems tailor made to emphasize how powerful the guy poolside is. The argument that he needed to pose a difficult question to see how the interviewee would respond would make sense if he actually asked a difficult question. But, as Xelor showed, it is such a common question that there are articles written about how to respond to it, so it's not really so hard, is it? Just a cool way to torture the mouse before biting out it's guts.

I have always enjoyed conversing with Xelor and he's a smart guy, but a little empathy and compassion would go a long way here, regardless of the decision he made. It's his business--literally--and he knows who fits in. To me that wasn't the point of the thread.
 
I have an entirely different spin on this whole situation, being an emotionally sensitive type.

When you apply for a job, it is about the most vulnerable that a person can be. The power is all with the prospective employer. You get all gussied up and go to sit before a total stranger to be judged on one of the most important aspects of your life--knowledge, experience and the ability to do a job well. You are going, hat in hand, begging for work. As far as a power imbalance, it's about as close to the helplessness of being sold into slavery as most of us will ever come. It is all up to the decision of the prospective employer.

In this case, the guy is peremptorily rejected by the man with the power, who is sitting by a pool in the Bahamas, because he honestly answered a question. And the man at poolside not only crushed the guy beneath his heel, he continued with a vituperative rant about just what a moron he was:
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.

So the nightmare of interviewing for a job and being rejected is compounded with the reminder that the interviewer is also judging our character, our intelligence and whatever else he sees fit to poke his nose into.

This story seems tailor made to emphasize how powerful the guy poolside is. The argument that he needed to pose a difficult question to see how the interviewee would respond would make sense if he actually asked a difficult question. But, as Xelor showed, it is such a common question that there are articles written about how to respond to it, so it's not really so hard, is it? Just a cool way to torture the mouse before biting out it's guts.

I have always enjoyed conversing with Xelor and he's a smart guy, but a little empathy and compassion would go a long way here, regardless of the decision he made. It's his business--literally--and he knows who fits in. To me that wasn't the point of the thread.
The power is all with the prospective employer....You are going, hat in hand, begging for work.

I and my colleagues don't see it that way. I doubt that most business owners see it that way. The reality is that in the exchange of labor for money, both parties receive what they want and need. Very few principals/firm establish staffing levels based on the notion of "how many people can they can help by exhibiting the largesse of giving them a job."

As far as a power imbalance, it's about as close to the helplessness of being sold into slavery as most of us will ever come.

The "imbalance" is that of any one individual rarely, if ever, being the only person who can perform adequately (or better) the tasks an employer needs done. At the end of the day, every employee, when they go seeking a job, is saying, "I have something to sell and you have stated you desire to purchase that which I am selling." Just as, for whatever reason(s), one chooses to purchase a Big Mac instead of a burrito, employers evaluate their options and purchase "Bill's" rather than "Bob's" labor.
In this case, the guy is peremptorily rejected by the man with the power, who is sitting by a pool in the Bahamas, because he honestly answered a question.
There was nothing peremptory going on.
His interview with me, when it started, was but a formality for (1) four of the five other partners on the interview team had emailed saying they recommend we hire the guy...I was of the mind that insofar as four partners thought the guy is "high quality," barring his really screwing up with me, his being hired was a "done deal," as they say.

Those factors combined to make me amenable to hiring the guy. The fact of the matter is that at the outset of the call, the guy was all but hired. I even was satisfied with him and his qualifications until he answered that question as he did.

In this case, the guy is peremptorily rejected by the man with the power, who is sitting by a pool in the Bahamas, because he honestly answered a question.

Like it or not, all employers have requirements that prospective workers must meet. One can frame those requirements in whatever jaundiced language one wants, but at the end of the day, the requirements remain and seekers of the job must meet them, all of them. As go the requirements evaluated by asking the "greatest weakness question, I've already discussed them and shown that mine is not the only firm that has them.
Among the firms that also have those requirements are the news organizations that have let go of reporters, editors, anchors, etc. who chose to say publicly things that do not align with their former firm's values. In most instances, the business (employee) requirements the person showed they lack in sufficient quantity are judgement and discretion. Those are not opprobrious qualities to demand of workers, including workers seeking/holding a position that pays over $300K/year, though, frankly the wage doesn't have much to do with it. Good judgement, thinking quickly on one's feet, and discretion are important qualities for workers at all pay grades.

So the nightmare of interviewing for a job and being rejected is compounded with the reminder that the interviewer is also judging our character, our intelligence and whatever else he sees fit to poke his nose into.

To the extent the employer/firm deems whatever be those qualities, they do and they are right to do so for nobody but a firm's owners/executive managers gets to decide what matters and what does not as goes the people from whom the firm purchases labor. One need not like a firm's definition of what matters and what doesn't in that regard, but liking it, one has two choices: (1) get over it and exhibit the requisite qualities to the best of one's ability, or (2) sell one's labor to a firm that doesn't think such things matter.

I have always enjoyed conversing with Xelor and he's a smart guy, but a little empathy and compassion would go a long way here, regardless of the decision he made. It's his business--literally--and he knows who fits in. To me that wasn't the point of the thread.

That wan't the point of the thread. It is, however, a point that, in response to someone's comment, I later made
TY, but I'm sure I know better than you what is the right way to handle anything and everything having to do with the interview process at my firm. I don't know what makes you think you can be so presumptuous as to tell me that I'm wrong about such a thing.
.​
 
I have an entirely different spin on this whole situation, being an emotionally sensitive type.

When you apply for a job, it is about the most vulnerable that a person can be. The power is all with the prospective employer. You get all gussied up and go to sit before a total stranger to be judged on one of the most important aspects of your life--knowledge, experience and the ability to do a job well. You are going, hat in hand, begging for work. As far as a power imbalance, it's about as close to the helplessness of being sold into slavery as most of us will ever come. It is all up to the decision of the prospective employer.

In this case, the guy is peremptorily rejected by the man with the power, who is sitting by a pool in the Bahamas, because he honestly answered a question. And the man at poolside not only crushed the guy beneath his heel, he continued with a vituperative rant about just what a moron he was:
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.

So the nightmare of interviewing for a job and being rejected is compounded with the reminder that the interviewer is also judging our character, our intelligence and whatever else he sees fit to poke his nose into.

This story seems tailor made to emphasize how powerful the guy poolside is. The argument that he needed to pose a difficult question to see how the interviewee would respond would make sense if he actually asked a difficult question. But, as Xelor showed, it is such a common question that there are articles written about how to respond to it, so it's not really so hard, is it? Just a cool way to torture the mouse before biting out it's guts.

I have always enjoyed conversing with Xelor and he's a smart guy, but a little empathy and compassion would go a long way here, regardless of the decision he made. It's his business--literally--and he knows who fits in. To me that wasn't the point of the thread.
The power is all with the prospective employer....You are going, hat in hand, begging for work.

I and my colleagues don't see it that way. I doubt that most business owners see it that way. The reality is that in the exchange of labor for money, both parties receive what they want and need. Very few principals/firm establish staffing levels based on the notion of "how many people can they can help by exhibiting the largesse of giving them a job."

As far as a power imbalance, it's about as close to the helplessness of being sold into slavery as most of us will ever come.

The "imbalance" is that of any one individual rarely, if ever, being the only person who can perform adequately (or better) the tasks an employer needs done. At the end of the day, every employee, when they go seeking a job, is saying, "I have something to sell and you have stated you desire to purchase that which I am selling." Just as, for whatever reason(s), one chooses to purchase a Big Mac instead of a burrito, employers evaluate their options and purchase "Bill's" rather than "Bob's" labor.
In this case, the guy is peremptorily rejected by the man with the power, who is sitting by a pool in the Bahamas, because he honestly answered a question.
There was nothing peremptory going on.
His interview with me, when it started, was but a formality for (1) four of the five other partners on the interview team had emailed saying they recommend we hire the guy...I was of the mind that insofar as four partners thought the guy is "high quality," barring his really screwing up with me, his being hired was a "done deal," as they say.

Those factors combined to make me amenable to hiring the guy. The fact of the matter is that at the outset of the call, the guy was all but hired. I even was satisfied with him and his qualifications until he answered that question as he did.

In this case, the guy is peremptorily rejected by the man with the power, who is sitting by a pool in the Bahamas, because he honestly answered a question.

Like it or not, all employers have requirements that prospective workers must meet. One can frame those requirements in whatever jaundiced language one wants, but at the end of the day, the requirements remain and seekers of the job must meet them, all of them. As go the requirements evaluated by asking the "greatest weakness question, I've already discussed them and shown that mine is not the only firm that has them.
Among the firms that also have those requirements are the news organizations that have let go of reporters, editors, anchors, etc. who chose to say publicly things that do not align with their former firm's values. In most instances, the business (employee) requirements the person showed they lack in sufficient quantity are judgement and discretion. Those are not opprobrious qualities to demand of workers, including workers seeking/holding a position that pays over $300K/year, though, frankly the wage doesn't have much to do with it. Good judgement, thinking quickly on one's feet, and discretion are important qualities for workers at all pay grades.

So the nightmare of interviewing for a job and being rejected is compounded with the reminder that the interviewer is also judging our character, our intelligence and whatever else he sees fit to poke his nose into.

To the extent the employer/firm deems whatever be those qualities, they do and they are right to do so for nobody but a firm's owners/executive managers gets to decide what matters and what does not as goes the people from whom the firm purchases labor. One need not like a firm's definition of what matters and what doesn't in that regard, but liking it, one has two choices: (1) get over it and exhibit the requisite qualities to the best of one's ability, or (2) sell one's labor to a firm that doesn't think such things matter.

I have always enjoyed conversing with Xelor and he's a smart guy, but a little empathy and compassion would go a long way here, regardless of the decision he made. It's his business--literally--and he knows who fits in. To me that wasn't the point of the thread.

That wan't the point of the thread. It is, however, a point that, in response to someone's comment, I later made
TY, but I'm sure I know better than you what is the right way to handle anything and everything having to do with the interview process at my firm. I don't know what makes you think you can be so presumptuous as to tell me that I'm wrong about such a thing.
.​
Just sharing MY perspective. I am aware you have a different one. That doesn't make either of us "wrong," just viewing it differently.
 
I have an entirely different spin on this whole situation, being an emotionally sensitive type.

When you apply for a job, it is about the most vulnerable that a person can be. The power is all with the prospective employer. You get all gussied up and go to sit before a total stranger to be judged on one of the most important aspects of your life--knowledge, experience and the ability to do a job well. You are going, hat in hand, begging for work. As far as a power imbalance, it's about as close to the helplessness of being sold into slavery as most of us will ever come. It is all up to the decision of the prospective employer.

In this case, the guy is peremptorily rejected by the man with the power, who is sitting by a pool in the Bahamas, because he honestly answered a question. And the man at poolside not only crushed the guy beneath his heel, he continued with a vituperative rant about just what a moron he was:
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.

So the nightmare of interviewing for a job and being rejected is compounded with the reminder that the interviewer is also judging our character, our intelligence and whatever else he sees fit to poke his nose into.

This story seems tailor made to emphasize how powerful the guy poolside is. The argument that he needed to pose a difficult question to see how the interviewee would respond would make sense if he actually asked a difficult question. But, as Xelor showed, it is such a common question that there are articles written about how to respond to it, so it's not really so hard, is it? Just a cool way to torture the mouse before biting out it's guts.

I have always enjoyed conversing with Xelor and he's a smart guy, but a little empathy and compassion would go a long way here, regardless of the decision he made. It's his business--literally--and he knows who fits in. To me that wasn't the point of the thread.
The power is all with the prospective employer....You are going, hat in hand, begging for work.

I and my colleagues don't see it that way. I doubt that most business owners see it that way. The reality is that in the exchange of labor for money, both parties receive what they want and need. Very few principals/firm establish staffing levels based on the notion of "how many people can they can help by exhibiting the largesse of giving them a job."

As far as a power imbalance, it's about as close to the helplessness of being sold into slavery as most of us will ever come.

The "imbalance" is that of any one individual rarely, if ever, being the only person who can perform adequately (or better) the tasks an employer needs done. At the end of the day, every employee, when they go seeking a job, is saying, "I have something to sell and you have stated you desire to purchase that which I am selling." Just as, for whatever reason(s), one chooses to purchase a Big Mac instead of a burrito, employers evaluate their options and purchase "Bill's" rather than "Bob's" labor.
In this case, the guy is peremptorily rejected by the man with the power, who is sitting by a pool in the Bahamas, because he honestly answered a question.
There was nothing peremptory going on.
His interview with me, when it started, was but a formality for (1) four of the five other partners on the interview team had emailed saying they recommend we hire the guy...I was of the mind that insofar as four partners thought the guy is "high quality," barring his really screwing up with me, his being hired was a "done deal," as they say.

Those factors combined to make me amenable to hiring the guy. The fact of the matter is that at the outset of the call, the guy was all but hired. I even was satisfied with him and his qualifications until he answered that question as he did.

In this case, the guy is peremptorily rejected by the man with the power, who is sitting by a pool in the Bahamas, because he honestly answered a question.

Like it or not, all employers have requirements that prospective workers must meet. One can frame those requirements in whatever jaundiced language one wants, but at the end of the day, the requirements remain and seekers of the job must meet them, all of them. As go the requirements evaluated by asking the "greatest weakness question, I've already discussed them and shown that mine is not the only firm that has them.
Among the firms that also have those requirements are the news organizations that have let go of reporters, editors, anchors, etc. who chose to say publicly things that do not align with their former firm's values. In most instances, the business (employee) requirements the person showed they lack in sufficient quantity are judgement and discretion. Those are not opprobrious qualities to demand of workers, including workers seeking/holding a position that pays over $300K/year, though, frankly the wage doesn't have much to do with it. Good judgement, thinking quickly on one's feet, and discretion are important qualities for workers at all pay grades.

So the nightmare of interviewing for a job and being rejected is compounded with the reminder that the interviewer is also judging our character, our intelligence and whatever else he sees fit to poke his nose into.

To the extent the employer/firm deems whatever be those qualities, they do and they are right to do so for nobody but a firm's owners/executive managers gets to decide what matters and what does not as goes the people from whom the firm purchases labor. One need not like a firm's definition of what matters and what doesn't in that regard, but liking it, one has two choices: (1) get over it and exhibit the requisite qualities to the best of one's ability, or (2) sell one's labor to a firm that doesn't think such things matter.

I have always enjoyed conversing with Xelor and he's a smart guy, but a little empathy and compassion would go a long way here, regardless of the decision he made. It's his business--literally--and he knows who fits in. To me that wasn't the point of the thread.

That wan't the point of the thread. It is, however, a point that, in response to someone's comment, I later made
TY, but I'm sure I know better than you what is the right way to handle anything and everything having to do with the interview process at my firm. I don't know what makes you think you can be so presumptuous as to tell me that I'm wrong about such a thing.
.​
Just sharing MY perspective. I am aware you have a different one. That doesn't make either of us "wrong," just viewing it differently.
In the abstract, I agree with you on that.
 
I have an entirely different spin on this whole situation, being an emotionally sensitive type.

When you apply for a job, it is about the most vulnerable that a person can be. The power is all with the prospective employer. You get all gussied up and go to sit before a total stranger to be judged on one of the most important aspects of your life--knowledge, experience and the ability to do a job well. You are going, hat in hand, begging for work. As far as a power imbalance, it's about as close to the helplessness of being sold into slavery as most of us will ever come. It is all up to the decision of the prospective employer.

In this case, the guy is peremptorily rejected by the man with the power, who is sitting by a pool in the Bahamas, because he honestly answered a question. And the man at poolside not only crushed the guy beneath his heel, he continued with a vituperative rant about just what a moron he was:
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.

So the nightmare of interviewing for a job and being rejected is compounded with the reminder that the interviewer is also judging our character, our intelligence and whatever else he sees fit to poke his nose into.

This story seems tailor made to emphasize how powerful the guy poolside is. The argument that he needed to pose a difficult question to see how the interviewee would respond would make sense if he actually asked a difficult question. But, as Xelor showed, it is such a common question that there are articles written about how to respond to it, so it's not really so hard, is it? Just a cool way to torture the mouse before biting out it's guts.

I have always enjoyed conversing with Xelor and he's a smart guy, but a little empathy and compassion would go a long way here, regardless of the decision he made. It's his business--literally--and he knows who fits in. To me that wasn't the point of the thread.
The power is all with the prospective employer....You are going, hat in hand, begging for work.

I and my colleagues don't see it that way. I doubt that most business owners see it that way. The reality is that in the exchange of labor for money, both parties receive what they want and need. Very few principals/firm establish staffing levels based on the notion of "how many people can they can help by exhibiting the largesse of giving them a job."

As far as a power imbalance, it's about as close to the helplessness of being sold into slavery as most of us will ever come.

The "imbalance" is that of any one individual rarely, if ever, being the only person who can perform adequately (or better) the tasks an employer needs done. At the end of the day, every employee, when they go seeking a job, is saying, "I have something to sell and you have stated you desire to purchase that which I am selling." Just as, for whatever reason(s), one chooses to purchase a Big Mac instead of a burrito, employers evaluate their options and purchase "Bill's" rather than "Bob's" labor.
In this case, the guy is peremptorily rejected by the man with the power, who is sitting by a pool in the Bahamas, because he honestly answered a question.
There was nothing peremptory going on.
His interview with me, when it started, was but a formality for (1) four of the five other partners on the interview team had emailed saying they recommend we hire the guy...I was of the mind that insofar as four partners thought the guy is "high quality," barring his really screwing up with me, his being hired was a "done deal," as they say.

Those factors combined to make me amenable to hiring the guy. The fact of the matter is that at the outset of the call, the guy was all but hired. I even was satisfied with him and his qualifications until he answered that question as he did.

In this case, the guy is peremptorily rejected by the man with the power, who is sitting by a pool in the Bahamas, because he honestly answered a question.

Like it or not, all employers have requirements that prospective workers must meet. One can frame those requirements in whatever jaundiced language one wants, but at the end of the day, the requirements remain and seekers of the job must meet them, all of them. As go the requirements evaluated by asking the "greatest weakness question, I've already discussed them and shown that mine is not the only firm that has them.
Among the firms that also have those requirements are the news organizations that have let go of reporters, editors, anchors, etc. who chose to say publicly things that do not align with their former firm's values. In most instances, the business (employee) requirements the person showed they lack in sufficient quantity are judgement and discretion. Those are not opprobrious qualities to demand of workers, including workers seeking/holding a position that pays over $300K/year, though, frankly the wage doesn't have much to do with it. Good judgement, thinking quickly on one's feet, and discretion are important qualities for workers at all pay grades.

So the nightmare of interviewing for a job and being rejected is compounded with the reminder that the interviewer is also judging our character, our intelligence and whatever else he sees fit to poke his nose into.

To the extent the employer/firm deems whatever be those qualities, they do and they are right to do so for nobody but a firm's owners/executive managers gets to decide what matters and what does not as goes the people from whom the firm purchases labor. One need not like a firm's definition of what matters and what doesn't in that regard, but liking it, one has two choices: (1) get over it and exhibit the requisite qualities to the best of one's ability, or (2) sell one's labor to a firm that doesn't think such things matter.

I have always enjoyed conversing with Xelor and he's a smart guy, but a little empathy and compassion would go a long way here, regardless of the decision he made. It's his business--literally--and he knows who fits in. To me that wasn't the point of the thread.

That wan't the point of the thread. It is, however, a point that, in response to someone's comment, I later made
TY, but I'm sure I know better than you what is the right way to handle anything and everything having to do with the interview process at my firm. I don't know what makes you think you can be so presumptuous as to tell me that I'm wrong about such a thing.
.​
Just sharing MY perspective. I am aware you have a different one. That doesn't make either of us "wrong," just viewing it differently.
In the abstract, I agree with you on that.
LOL But in this case, you are right. Yes?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top