I ask this question of interviewees. I do it knowing exactly what most of the comments in a story like this will be. Indeed, I ask it because it seems to elicit the sort of typical response.
It is actually a perfect testing question of attitude: Does the candidate get a sneer? Do they answer with attitude, or with zero creativity or interest? "I work too hard. I care too much."
Awesome, they've weeded themselves out as no hires. I thank sites like Reddit and HN for engendering such a sense of attitude among so many that it allows you to filter them early in the process: No need to get to the technical questions if you can't answer a simple question of a professional peer.
It is not a difficult question. Further, people who say that it's to "test for self-awareness" don't get the point of it. You can actually ask almost anything of an interviewee and discern knowledge about how they think, how they reason, and how they communicate. This is just such a question, with loads of information delivered by the response. Because when I'm interviewing we're looking for someone to work closely with us -- minus the attitude -- for hopefully years. If we just want to ask technical questions we'd hire a consulting company.
With respect... What sort of answers do you get that encourage you to hire the interviewee? What do you actually learn from the answers?
The reason I've always disliked it is that it's just begging for a silly response. Sure, I have weaknesses; but you are asking someone to brag about the things they do poorly at the same time they want to make the best impression. That does not encourage or reward honestly.
It also feels like a "cheater" question, and makes me feel the way I do when a sports news person asks a team member, "How big is this victory for you?" What the heck does she think he is going to say: "I really don't care that we won"?
Two candidates have Javascript skills that are a bit weaker than you'd like. All other things being equal, you would prefer the candidate who already knows they need to work on their Javascript over the one who doesn't, right?
But does the question really elicit the information you're looking for? CandidateA may know that her JavaScript could be better, but the (real) weakness she may trot out is that she's really nervous as a public speaker. It's not that she is hiding her JavaScript weakness, just that she's bothered less by it. CandidateB tells you that his JavaScript could be better, but he doesn't tell you that he yells at coworkers when they disagree with him. You're not necessarily going to get the info you asked for... for good or ill.
Why not ask, instead, "In which languages do you feel most and least confident? Why do you think that is?" or "We each learn differently: books, classes, hands-on experimentation. How do you go about learning a new language?" In the latter case, for instance, there's no obvious right or wrong answer which the candidate is motivated to "guess"; it's simply a matter of learning how this person operates.
This question says a lot about the interviewer too.
To me, the interviewer who asks the biggest weakness question is either clueless or a dick. Nice HR ladies who have this question on their checklist for "leadership assessment" are an exception - the checklist is sacred to them.
You are saying that you ask this question to gauge the attitude, creativity and interest. Yet, you ask the most uninteresting and unimaginative question to assess creativity and interest. What does it say about you?
You are saying that you ask this question to gauge the attitude, creativity and interest.
Actually I ask this question specifically because it is such a rallying point of angry, offended developers (specifically those who interview a lot, unsuccessfully, thus having a serious chip on their shoulder about the interview process). If someone is going to be a prima donna, unable to communicate with peers without a dismissive attitude, I desperately want to weed them out at the beginning. This question serves that purpose brilliantly.
What does it say about you?
Is this one of those "we're equals" things? I think the interviewees I adore the most are those that try to "turn the table" and interview me. Throw some hardballs to determine if we're worth their trouble.
We pay far above the norm. We have flexible hours and telecommuting. We work on fantastic technologies that are driven by our development staff. Meaning we are in the driver's seat. I will engage every filter I can conceive to cull the herd, and I've found that asinine question to be a perfect tool for that.
Again, you say that you want to weed out prima donnas. Yet, you act like a prima donna yourself with "we're not equal". Do everyone a favor - don't even invite people to the interviews when you don't think they are your equals - you are wasting their time.
You whole argument tells me you never actually hired people to work for you. Sitting on interviews and writing feedbacks is very different from hiring people to implement your ideas i.e. when your job depends on the work people you hired produce. Making talented people work for you when they don't have to is not an easy thing. Sitting on a high horse, like you are, it is pretty impossible.
The relationship between a candidate and an employer is seldom an equal one, and it's ridiculous to claim otherwise -- we already made the case why candidates should want to work for us, and now it's up to them to prove that we want to work with them.
There are exceptional employees who we'll tolerate the bullshit for, but they are the exception.
Making talented people work for you when they don't have to is not an easy thing. Sitting on a high horse, like you are, it is pretty impossible.
If this helps you sleep better at night, you go nuts.
Whenever discussions about interviews or interviewers come up, the vast majority of comments are naturally going to come from people with a chip on their shoulder about the process -- the bottom dregs who churn from interview to interview. If you think the sorts of comments that discussions like this yield represents the actual talent that employers are seeking, you are sadly misinformed in the internet echo chamber.
I remember being asked this question in interviews when I was starting out in the job world in the late-90's. It certainly came across as a cliché, and I suspected the interviewers were just following an uninspired script.
I still suspect that most interviewers are being trite with this question, but the years of experience have taught me that the question does have a kernel of relevance. Ideally, the goal of working with a team (i.e. a company) isn't just to have a linear productivity amplifier, but to build something greater than the sum of what the individual members could build. This means understanding not only the strengths that you bring to the table, but also your weaker areas where you can benefit from the strengths of others. In the context of building a strong team, I now think this could be a very valid question.
It is actually a perfect testing question of attitude: Does the candidate get a sneer? Do they answer with attitude, or with zero creativity or interest? "I work too hard. I care too much."
Awesome, they've weeded themselves out as no hires. I thank sites like Reddit and HN for engendering such a sense of attitude among so many that it allows you to filter them early in the process: No need to get to the technical questions if you can't answer a simple question of a professional peer.
It is not a difficult question. Further, people who say that it's to "test for self-awareness" don't get the point of it. You can actually ask almost anything of an interviewee and discern knowledge about how they think, how they reason, and how they communicate. This is just such a question, with loads of information delivered by the response. Because when I'm interviewing we're looking for someone to work closely with us -- minus the attitude -- for hopefully years. If we just want to ask technical questions we'd hire a consulting company.