Weaknesses

Mischa8

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Dont say you are a perfectionist. If anyone says it to me, and they often do, they get a big black mark against their name.

The trick as others have said is firstly to choose something that is fairly irrelevant to the role you are doing. Secondly choose something that can be both a positive and a negative. Thirdly, say what you have done to address it!

The one I always used to give (given my role as a change manager) was that I always come across as exceptionally calm which isnt the best when you are trying to motivate a team of people but I am aware of it, I consciously make an effort to appear more excitable and also ensure that I have others on the team that are more of the bouncy type. On the flip side of cause when the proverbial hits the fan the ability to always come across calm helps to calm others and helps prevent the headless chicken syndrome.

That's really interesting to note about the perfectionist comment - because I am one... and have mentioned this in interviews. Not that it's done me any harm! In fact by one ex boss I was told I was a perfectionist to a T - i.e. almost too perfect in what I did. They didn't mind as I didn't need to be watched which is crucial.

Mischa8

Idiophreak wrote: »

Don't like that, I'm afraid.

You were asked to identify a weakness, not a strength. So my next question would be..."right...and you're hoping to not be that way in the future?"

For me - as well being self critical maybe means you doubt yourself - and also - if you're self critical you can often be critical of others.


also why would you *constantly be assessing what you've done and how you can improve on it in the future* - surely if you are secure in your role and what you do then why would you need to constantly assess and seek to improve yourself?? I can sort of see this would be of benefit but slightly shows someone who isn't very self confident, especially in their work.

InsideInsurance

Mischa8 wrote: »

That's really interesting to note about the perfectionist comment - because I am one... and have mentioned this in interviews. Not that it's done me any harm!

Its a personal bugbear and is far too much of a stock answer for my tastes.

I am sure in some peoples cases it is true but there are a couple of "standard" answers such as perfectionist, workaholic, too eager to help and a few others come up far far too often and feel like a stock rather than personal answer.

Idiophreak

Mischa8 wrote: »

also why would you *constantly be assessing what you've done and how you can improve on it in the future* - surely if you are secure in your role and what you do then why would you need to constantly assess and seek to improve yourself?? I can sort of see this would be of benefit but slightly shows someone who isn't very self confident, especially in their work.

It's got nothing to do with confidence. I'm very confident in my job, but I'm constantly thinking about the way I do things, whether I can do things better. If I came across someone who was "confident" that they always did things the best way, I'd certainly not want them working for me. That's not confidence, it's arrogance.

My point was a little more general, though. I hear a lot of these answers when they say "here's my weakness...and here's a bunch of reasons why this 'weakness' actually makes me *better* at doing the job!" and it just completely defeats the point.

Idiophreak

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Its a personal bugbear and is far too much of a stock answer for my tastes.

I think you can tell when it's a stock answer and when it's the truth, though. I know someone who's a complete perfectionist and has incredibly high standards...and it is, genuinely, a weakness that they're working on. It means they hold on too tightly to things and struggle to delegate, as they don't think other people will do the job to their standards...so when they say it in interview, it's not wrapped up into a positive, it's presented as a genuine weakness that needs work.

The issue, then, is making it not seem like too much of a weakness....I suggested answers like "I've been working on how I delegate tasks to others, so that I can be very specific about what I expect from people and ensure that what they do meets my standards"...I think that's a reasonable answer, although fundamentally still the "perfectionist" clich!..

InsideInsurance

I agree it can be a true weakness and at times you can tell if its a stock answer or not. At the end of the day however interviews are a bit of a dance and there are some things people are just never going to give as an answer even if it is a true weakness - only once had someone answer that their weakness was they were a party animal and had had to take off ~30 days as sick in the last year for being too hungover the next day.

Obviously the perfectionist answer isnt in that league of bad answers but it is something to be conscious of that it can come across as too stock and thus insincere. The ability to self analyze and identify ones own weaknesses is actually a fairly important skill and a stock answer suggests you dont have it

evanjonesaber

I used the weakness that "I have trouble sometimes switching off from work at the end of the day when I go home."

This shows that you are serious about your work.

heretolearn_2

This is such a stupid question to ask. Only the naive jump in with a real weakness (such as the 30 days of hangovers due to partying too much) and everyone else rehearses an answer to put themselves in a good light.

If you are unfortunate enough to be asked this then it's very hard to come up with something that's not too cliched/cheesy/actually a good thing, or generally too fake.

So I agree it's best to find a real weakness - but nothing too serious - and then state that you recognise you do this and do X to counteract it. Poor spelling I would say is too serious unless it's a job where you don't have to write much. Spellcheck isn't reliable enough.



Things like having problems delegating as you don't believe anyone else can do it as well are quite good, as you can go on to say that you recognise this as a problem so now you make sure that you provide good training/written procedures/instructions when you delegate tasks the first few times until people have learned how to do it to your standards. I don't like the 'can't switch off from work' thing as it makes me think you'll be stressy all the time. Being too calm and having to make a deliberate effort to get more exciting/motivational when required is also quite good, I think, in a manager.

I'd be slightly wary of the perfectionist thing - you need to stress that you overcome this by using self-appointed deadlines and the principle at times of 'good enough', otherwise you sound like someone who will take 3 days to do an hours work as you keep going over and over it.

Person_one

Its a terrible question, and all the perfectionist/workaholic type answers are unbelievably corny and insincere.

If an interviewer is daft enough to ask it I tend to pick an area of the job I haven't had much experience in before, rather than a personality trait.

So not "I just work too damn hard, its a real problem for me" but "I haven't had much opportunity to work with X programme or in Y capacity in previous roles, however I am looking forward to the opportunity and to developing those new skills." Better worded obviously.

heretolearn_2

That's an excellent point. It doesn't necessarily have to be a personal weakness, just an area in which you are weaker when applying for this role.

So something like 'I see you use X software and I haven't experienced using that yet, but I am competent in Y and Z which I believe are similar, and I would work hard to become proficient in X as quickly as possible' could be really good. Every applicant is weaker in some area or other and there's nothing wrong with admitting it to some degree. Better that than some !!!!!! who sits there saying 'I can do that' to everything but it becomes obvious that they are blagging.