“What’s your biggest weakness?”
It’s the most dreaded question in the job interview process. Do you be totally honest, and risk making yourself look bad, or try and up-sell with, “I care too much,” or, “My tendency to be early,” and risk having your interviewer throw up all over your shirt? Does a good answer to this question even exist?
As so often seems to happen, the users of online community Reddit came through with the goods.
Someone posted, "When asked in a job interview 'what's your biggest weakness' what is the best answer?" on the r/AskReddit board. All the answers are great, but one in particular really stands out.
"Remain silent, and pull an index card out of your pocket that says 'I over-prepare.' "
User jumper34017, we are tipping our hats (and going out to buy some index cards).
As another user said, "Making the interviewer laugh probably doubles your chances of being hired."
If you don't have the confidence to actually try this (and let's be honest, most of us wouldn't), check out these other great answers from the thread.
The damn-that-was-well-said option
This makes the question about the employer, shows how hard you're willing to work, and gives your interviewer a glimpse into the depths of your work ethic.
The weakness-as-strength option
User CanonInZ suggests emphasizing your weaknesses, but phrasing them as things you can improve. For example: "I'm working to get better at multitasking, as my previous job had me focus on single tasks for large blocks of time." "I don't have a lot of experience dealing with difficult employees, as the teams I supervised at my previous two positions were all really cohesive." "I've never had a chance to work with <specific, non-mission critical tool> before and I see you use that a lot here, so I'm keen to learn how to use it."
The honest option
Lying about the sort of person you are in an interview sets you up to fail in the actual job. Be honest about who you are—just make sure you explain why it makes you perfect for the position.
Ten things NEVER to say in a job interview. Post continues below.
The workaholic option
A Reddit user who'd been on the other side of the desk says the answers they like to hear most are:
"I sometimes struggle to maintain a work/life balance."
"I could be more sociable with my co-workers."
"Usually people who are quick with those responses are accurate self-assessors and are more likely to be self-managing workaholics than lazy slugs. It also bespeaks a degree of introspection and an understanding that humans are relational. It's easy to communicate with those folks—they are the kind of people to whom you can give an instruction one time, and they listen."
If all else fails, go for…
The swoon option
Flattery will get you everywhere. Though you might want to read the room with this one, because it could go either way…
Top Comments
I think one of the the trickiest question at a job interview is when they ask outright what your current salary is, yet won't disclose their own range for the job you're in the running for... like it's a top-shelf secret from you, the candidate who would be receiving the income, and dare you wish to ever know this before your first payday.
Yes! I really don't get that. You have a budget, I have various requirements in a job (being able to afford to eat for example), why not just put our cards on the table and see if we match?
Got to give government roles credit in that regard, the pay range is pretty much always stated in the ad.
I put a pay range in ads - obviously a range is necessary because I will pay top dollar for someone who brings all the skills and value but I will still put someone on who might lack in some areas if they're willing to jump in and learn as they go - but that lower skilled person won't get the same pay as the person who brings everything to the role. The reason I ask what candidates earn currently is so I can get an idea of whether it is even worth making an offer to a candidate - we all tend to spend a little more than we make and if someone is currently in a role that is well above what my role will pay, then I'm frank with them and say "Our offer will be around X-Y, that's quite a bit below where you are currently - how would you make that work?" Watch the light die in their eyes and I know not to waste my time and the other candidates' time pitching to someone who is going to hate a drop in income.
A range is fine, I have no problem with that. People naturally see themselves towards the top of the range even if they don't have all the experience necessary but I don't think there's much you can do about that.
The counter argument to yours is it's not up to you to decide what pay people will be happy with. Though you seem to be doing things right there are many companies out there who will try to use the past salary information to limit what they will pay, say X + 5%, rather than paying them what you think they are worth.
Massachusetts is making it illegal to ask for an applicants salary history for that reason (amongst others).
Obviously Massachusetts is a long way from Australia, but I guess the theory still holds.
The counter argument to yours is it's not up to you to decide what pay people will be happy with.
It is up to me to decide who I will make an offer to and the criteria by which I make that assessment. I've been employing people in my company for 10 years and people routinely apply for roles they have no concrete ability to fill - whether through lack of skill base, lack of personal insight to understand that this job, with all the specifics clearly defined, is not a job that they want to do, or lack of commitment to the realities of working in the role, including the hours, commute and pay, amongst other things. Placements are at most risk during the first 4 weeks, where either one or both parties to the placement has not truly considered the other party's reality in either offering or accepting a role. I'm too experienced to buy nonsense from any job seeker that "oh it's a 4 hour commute compared to my current commute of 15mins but don't you worry, I'll make it work" "oh, it's a pay cut because I'm changing career paths to a completely new industry but don't you worry, l'll make it work".
It doesn't mean I don't select less skilled applicants on occasion or I only accept people within a certain geographical radius - but people who face challenges such as these to make the role work have to really convince me they are committed to working with me and my team. That's why we have interviews and select from a pool of applicants.
Though you seem to be doing things right...
Well thank you, condescension.
...there are many companies out there who will try to use the past salary information to limit what they will pay, say X + 5%, rather than paying them what you think they are worth.
And there are plenty of employees out there who grossly inflate their salaries in an effort to secure a higher offer. None of which I object to, it makes sense to me.
Most employers and most employees are very bad at employing people and being employed respectively.
I run a small company with low staff turnover. I find the right people and they stay. All for a reason.
Chocolate, red wine and Chris Hemsworth. Oh... Whoops! you didn't mean that kind of weakness?
The 3 at the same time, or is separately okay too?
Haha separately is good but three at the same time is a great night in!