How to answer 'what is your greatest weakness?' in an interview(fragile.org.uk)
fragile.org.uk
How to answer 'what is your greatest weakness?' in an interview
http://fragile.org.uk/2013/01/your-greatest-weakness/
27 comments
It's kind of funny that your honest answer is the stock slightly dishonest answer that most people give while answering that question.
Second only to (I invest too much in my work|I care too much|I overcommit myself).
I find it hard to be honest on this kind of question without sounding cheesy or insincere. Revealing personal weaknesses to complete strangers is extraordinarily difficult. Ironically, answering dishonestly can itself be quite revealing.
I find it hard to be honest on this kind of question without sounding cheesy or insincere. Revealing personal weaknesses to complete strangers is extraordinarily difficult. Ironically, answering dishonestly can itself be quite revealing.
No way! You can't approach this question from a 100% logical side like a robot, it has to involve some of your emotional consideration.
I answered "I'm lazy" when I was a youngin. The guy asked me if I wanted to rephrase. There's no benefit in saying what I said, I could have said "I have a problem breaking down large tasks into pieces" and said the same thing a bit smarter.
I answered "I'm lazy" when I was a youngin. The guy asked me if I wanted to rephrase. There's no benefit in saying what I said, I could have said "I have a problem breaking down large tasks into pieces" and said the same thing a bit smarter.
I agree that this is what an interview /ought/ to be, but anywhere that is going to ask 'what is your greatest weakness?' with a straight face is unlikely to value said openness and honestly.
I can't believe how much negative feedback there is for this question, and I'm even more surprised at how rude the suggestions have been for responding to this question, like walking out, or making fun of the person asking the question.
I've had to do a couple of interviews in my time, and when I ask this question, it's usually at the tail end when we've evaluated their technical skills and we're convinced they have the chops for the job.
So now all I'm evaluating is if they'll be a good cultural fit and when I ask this question, I'm not really evaluating what their responses are, I'm evaluating how well they respond to it.
If someone responds by storming out, then obviously they aren't going to work well if a team or programming problem comes up, which is a little out there which they don't like.
If they read a prepared textbook answer, then I know they like to be over prepared, which might be a good / bad thing depending on the position they're applying for.
But if they chuckle, then think about it for a bit, and give me an honest answer, it tells me that even though they have come up against something ridiculous, they're willing to give it an good go and try their best to work the problem (which I think is a good trait to have, especially in an engineering environment).
Interviewing is a lot more than giving a correct answer, even more so when trying to figure out if someone will be a good cultural fit or not.
I've had to do a couple of interviews in my time, and when I ask this question, it's usually at the tail end when we've evaluated their technical skills and we're convinced they have the chops for the job.
So now all I'm evaluating is if they'll be a good cultural fit and when I ask this question, I'm not really evaluating what their responses are, I'm evaluating how well they respond to it.
If someone responds by storming out, then obviously they aren't going to work well if a team or programming problem comes up, which is a little out there which they don't like.
If they read a prepared textbook answer, then I know they like to be over prepared, which might be a good / bad thing depending on the position they're applying for.
But if they chuckle, then think about it for a bit, and give me an honest answer, it tells me that even though they have come up against something ridiculous, they're willing to give it an good go and try their best to work the problem (which I think is a good trait to have, especially in an engineering environment).
Interviewing is a lot more than giving a correct answer, even more so when trying to figure out if someone will be a good cultural fit or not.
There is NO reason for thinking that someone who walks away from the "weakness question" would walk away from difficult or tedious work.
That is a dishonest rationalization that you have bolted on to hide your real motives.
You want to know how much the candidate will take bullshit from YOU. And that is why you ask the question.
It is a useless question for any other purpose, such as assessing talent.
That is a dishonest rationalization that you have bolted on to hide your real motives.
You want to know how much the candidate will take bullshit from YOU. And that is why you ask the question.
It is a useless question for any other purpose, such as assessing talent.
> That is a dishonest rationalization that you have bolted on to hide your real motives.
Wow, personal attacks already. I'm an engineer so interviews I've done have been to find engineers to work with, not to boss around ...
> It is a useless question for any other purpose, such as assessing talent.
As mentioned above, usually when this question comes up talent has already been assessed and we're just looking for cultural fit.
It's actually a lot harder than it looks to asses if someone will get along with you, so sometimes asking "out there" questions are a good way to tease people out.
Wow, personal attacks already. I'm an engineer so interviews I've done have been to find engineers to work with, not to boss around ...
> It is a useless question for any other purpose, such as assessing talent.
As mentioned above, usually when this question comes up talent has already been assessed and we're just looking for cultural fit.
It's actually a lot harder than it looks to asses if someone will get along with you, so sometimes asking "out there" questions are a good way to tease people out.
Wow, personal attacks already
It is dishonest to say you are checking if someone "is a cultural fit" when what you actually mean is "will take my crap".
God forbid you do your job and try to work with "difficult" people; you'd rather pass on the greatest engineer in the world than do that.
It is dishonest to say you are checking if someone "is a cultural fit" when what you actually mean is "will take my crap".
God forbid you do your job and try to work with "difficult" people; you'd rather pass on the greatest engineer in the world than do that.
My answer to this one won me my current job;
THEM: So what would you say is your biggest weakness?
ME: Well, I think it's rather obvious and rude for you to ask that...
THEM: <Shifty, uncomfortable silence>
ME: <Comic eye-roll> Clearly it's food!
THEM: <Laughter>
I'm slightly overweight (probably a lot of devs are), so it worked well...feel free to steal my routine...mileage may vary based on condifence/comic-timing.
I'm slightly overweight (probably a lot of devs are), so it worked well...feel free to steal my routine...mileage may vary based on condifence/comic-timing.
It's definitely a mediocre question, but I don't see why so many people get defensive about it. Is it really that hard to think of one or two personality traits that keep you from steamrolling through your day?
My answers may very well be different in 5 or 10 years, but for now:
1) If someone asks me for a time estimate, I always try to immediately come up with a rough number, which never takes into account "the last 20% takes 80% of the work." I'm trying to get better at not committing before having a spec, but I still have that habit.
2) I tend to get lightly emotionally invested in the code I'm currently writing. If I've spent two or three days working on something and find out that the requirements have changed, or that I need to architect my solution a different way, I usually need to work on something different for a day before I go back to it - otherwise, I stress out about having just wasted that effort.
Any interviewer that finds these answers unacceptable either shouldn't be asking the question, or is representing a company that I absolutely would not want to work for.
My answers may very well be different in 5 or 10 years, but for now:
1) If someone asks me for a time estimate, I always try to immediately come up with a rough number, which never takes into account "the last 20% takes 80% of the work." I'm trying to get better at not committing before having a spec, but I still have that habit.
2) I tend to get lightly emotionally invested in the code I'm currently writing. If I've spent two or three days working on something and find out that the requirements have changed, or that I need to architect my solution a different way, I usually need to work on something different for a day before I go back to it - otherwise, I stress out about having just wasted that effort.
Any interviewer that finds these answers unacceptable either shouldn't be asking the question, or is representing a company that I absolutely would not want to work for.
> I don't see why so many people get defensive about it.
Because it's a trap. The question isn't trying to see how much you know, or how good you'll be in the job. It's taking you at a vulnerable point and asking you to implicate yourself.
In addition, there's no good truthful answer. If you give a real weakness, you get beaten in interviews by those who lie about being a workaholic. If you dissemble, then you feel the interviewer has just forced you into a lie. This is infuriating for those who value honesty.
Because it's a trap. The question isn't trying to see how much you know, or how good you'll be in the job. It's taking you at a vulnerable point and asking you to implicate yourself.
In addition, there's no good truthful answer. If you give a real weakness, you get beaten in interviews by those who lie about being a workaholic. If you dissemble, then you feel the interviewer has just forced you into a lie. This is infuriating for those who value honesty.
I can see that. Do interviewers really fall for the "I'm a workaholic" line, though?
"I don't react charitably to bad interview questions. I tend to get pretty indignant and perhaps make a mockery of it. In some ways though this can be thought of as a positive since it tends to act as a filter against me taking bad jobs."
I would go with this: My biggest weakness, hmm, if it is .. what I think it is, I rather feel that I should not share it, because, I feel that while I'm fixing something, I should not promote the fact that I'm open. Similarly to how, when you are fixing something in a apartment, while trying to sell it to a customer.
if the other person is still not convinced yet, I would carry on and say:
Well, honestly, it is something not that big, which is proven by the fact that your experienced eyes have yet not caught it, so yes, in a way, I can say, the question should not be what is your biggest weakness, but instead, does it make you unqualified for this (job/opportunity/etc), and the answer would be NO, it doesn't.
its actually a general question, towards your self-confidence. Because any experienced person knows, that weaknesses can be overcome, failures made up for. What matters is the awareness of it, and will to change.
if the other person is still not convinced yet, I would carry on and say:
Well, honestly, it is something not that big, which is proven by the fact that your experienced eyes have yet not caught it, so yes, in a way, I can say, the question should not be what is your biggest weakness, but instead, does it make you unqualified for this (job/opportunity/etc), and the answer would be NO, it doesn't.
its actually a general question, towards your self-confidence. Because any experienced person knows, that weaknesses can be overcome, failures made up for. What matters is the awareness of it, and will to change.
If I heard a BS answer like this, and I do from time to time, interview would instantly be over. Sure I might carry on out of a sense of decorum, but you just lost the job. Good luck with your search.
And by the way, your answer did in fact reveal a weakness. What your answer just told me is that I can rely on you to give me patronizing answers instead of being direct. And that, my friend, does in fact make you unqualified to work for me.
And by the way, your answer did in fact reveal a weakness. What your answer just told me is that I can rely on you to give me patronizing answers instead of being direct. And that, my friend, does in fact make you unqualified to work for me.
I think the patronizing tone is well-deserved in the second "carry on and say.." portion. Here's a shorter honest (from me) answer that resembles rikacomet's first section I would probably give at first (after all, good companies can still have crappy hiring practices): "I don't know you well enough to reveal that information." If the interviewer persisted, then I'm with the rest of the group here who are done with the interview at that point, screw how good the company might have been on the inside.
If you ask the question you deserve all the patronizing answers anyone can come up with.
I'm surprised at the comments here. Cliched as this question is, it can help demonstrate your ability to identify areas for improvement and show how you're addressing them.
The best way to answer this is: 1) Identify: "Addressing large groups of people is something I struggle with" 2) Importance: "It's something I want to get better at, as my job often needs me to collaborate with a wide set of stakeholders" 3) Action: "I've joined the local Toastmasters/started presenting at XX user group etc"
It's not a negative question - it's a good opportunity to show your candor and dedication to self improvement and learning - something us developers do anyway.
The best way to answer this is: 1) Identify: "Addressing large groups of people is something I struggle with" 2) Importance: "It's something I want to get better at, as my job often needs me to collaborate with a wide set of stakeholders" 3) Action: "I've joined the local Toastmasters/started presenting at XX user group etc"
It's not a negative question - it's a good opportunity to show your candor and dedication to self improvement and learning - something us developers do anyway.
"Do you want the rehearsed, canned response you have heard a hundred times already or a real answer that would immediately disqualify me in most interviewers eyes?"
They want you to be perfectly honest, forthright, and to candidly tell them exactly what they want to hear.
No they don't, they wouldn't ask stupid questions if they did. They are playing a game. If they really want honest answer then the question they are asking is "Please tell me the reasons not to hire you so I don't have to do any thinking."
Reread the comment :)
I think you missed some sarcasm by the previous poster
I've always wished I could quote Trainspotting:
The truth -- well, the truth is that I've had a long-standing problem with heroin addiction. I've been know to sniff it, smoke it, swallow it, stick it up my arse and inject it into my veins. I've been trying to combat this addiction, but unless you count social security scams and shoplifting, I haven't had a regular job in years. I feel it's important to mention this.
The truth -- well, the truth is that I've had a long-standing problem with heroin addiction. I've been know to sniff it, smoke it, swallow it, stick it up my arse and inject it into my veins. I've been trying to combat this addiction, but unless you count social security scams and shoplifting, I haven't had a regular job in years. I feel it's important to mention this.
I am surprised by all the "If they ask this stupid question, you don't want to work for them."
It is hard to say why any potential employer might ask this question, but if it were me, I would be looking for some indication that you have an understanding of your own limitations. A stock answer or an attempt at redirection would not impress me. Of course, I don't expect you to incriminate yourself.
It is hard to say why any potential employer might ask this question, but if it were me, I would be looking for some indication that you have an understanding of your own limitations. A stock answer or an attempt at redirection would not impress me. Of course, I don't expect you to incriminate yourself.
Being truthful is a good thing in interviews, you're there to judge fit as much as they are. Hiding things helps nobody since the relationship will just blow up 3 months down the line ... do you really want to waste 3 months of your life in a job you don't like? Of course not.
Therefore, the only real answer is "I don't like bullshit questions."
Therefore, the only real answer is "I don't like bullshit questions."
I tell them I dont have any greatest weakness. I say, I've been in this business long enough to develop strategies to deal with it.
Other times I say sales. That's why I'm in programming.
Either answer usually gets them off that topic.
Other times I say sales. That's why I'm in programming.
Either answer usually gets them off that topic.
It's a BS question, but one thing that has always served me well is to choose a weakness that isn't fatal and is relatively easily remedied.
For example, if you're apply for a job where you have no direct reports, your weakness can be "I don't have that much experience in formal leadership, but I've had numerous examples in my past of informal leadership in teams, so I'm confident that given the opportunity, I could quickly come up to speed."
For example, if you're apply for a job where you have no direct reports, your weakness can be "I don't have that much experience in formal leadership, but I've had numerous examples in my past of informal leadership in teams, so I'm confident that given the opportunity, I could quickly come up to speed."
> one thing that has always served me well is to choose a weakness that isn't fatal and is relatively easily remedied.
In other words, lie? The question is directly asking for your biggest weakness, not one that's palatable.
This is why so many people find the question infuriating: it can't be answered honestly. Everyone has weaknesses, but no one wants to explain them in competition with others who might lie.
In other words, lie? The question is directly asking for your biggest weakness, not one that's palatable.
This is why so many people find the question infuriating: it can't be answered honestly. Everyone has weaknesses, but no one wants to explain them in competition with others who might lie.
"I sometimes give smart ass answers to stupid questions."
How about, "That's not a very good question for a variety of reasons, so I'm not going to answer it. This is both an answer and a meta-answer."
Sadly, that just invites a discussion. Laughing it off nips it at the bud and allows everyone to climb down from the idiot tree.
Most of the time you get a baleful stare because it's off-script.
Would you want to date a person or marry a person who was physically unable, or grossly offended by you raising a discussion about the idea that an interview question isn't optimal? If not marry, then why work with them 8 hours a day for the rest of your lives?
Would you want to date a person or marry a person who was physically unable, or grossly offended by you raising a discussion about the idea that an interview question isn't optimal? If not marry, then why work with them 8 hours a day for the rest of your lives?
Actually just ask what is your greatest strength, that will be your greatest weakness. Non-intuitive but happens to be true most of the time. First exposed to this at a religious program for 'finding your gifts' and again a couple of times at various executive off sites.
Nobody minds answering the question.
Nobody minds answering the question.
I always thought that the response by Daria Morgendorffer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daria) was one of the better ones to this question.
Q - "What is your greatest weakness?"
A - "My inability to answer stock questions with stock answers."
Q - "What is your greatest weakness?"
A - "My inability to answer stock questions with stock answers."
well thats a risky answer, without the buttering tone. If he is in the bad mood just that day, or out of focus, you are out 9/10.
It is risky, but unless you are desperate for the job (and that shows to the interviewer) any company asking this I probably don't want to work for anyway.
BTW I have said this a few times. Usually I get a laugh out of it.
BTW I have said this a few times. Usually I get a laugh out of it.
[deleted]
I think the question is not designed for engineers who work with computers and do not need to sound right but instead for salesmen and other professionals who work with people and need to sound right.
Site is slow, article text.
"So, Mr Johnson, what would you say is your greatest weakness?"
Worst. Interview. Question. Ever.
In isolation, it’s an interesting question to ask yourself, it requires a great deal of honesty and openness on the part of the individual and it requires trust that there will not be repercussions for the answer.
An interview is a place for none of those things. Candidates need, and are expected to, go out of their way to impress their interviewers and actively admitting weakness is a high risk strategy.
And yet it’s popularity remains, company’s still ask it and candidates still find a thousand and one tortured methods to say “I’m a workaholic”. In a novel attempt to get around this, Data Connection used to ask for your three greatest weaknesses. I’d love to know what they gained from this.
So how should this question be answered? From personal experience, responding ‘My left elbow’ sadly does not work.
In comes down to framing, strengths and weaknesses are pretty much alternate views on the same characteristic. Above a certain level of competence it is rare to find people truely good at certain pairings.
For instance, think those people who you admire for their vision. These people are inspiring, charismatic they lift you up and show you a world that you dimly knew existed but couldn’t quite realise. Wonderful people, but tell me, how are they on detail? How good are they are dotting the Is and crossing the Ts and meticulously going through the minutiae of a project, ensuring that everything is as it should be. Not so much huh?
Clearly there will exceptions but Richard Branson, just isn’t a details kind of guy and nor should he be. Conversely I want an Accountant to be exactly the opposite, they need to get down to the details.
Since the question is now framed in terms of strengths it is much easier to answer. Just figure out what strength of yours you wish to highlight, determine how that makes you weak and then go for it.
Not convinced? Here is an example.
Imagine for instance the Great Remallo, Lion Tamer extraordinaire, sitting for an interview. His CV/Resume contains plenty of past experience dealing with many different types of lion and as the inventor of the lion proof cape he clearly knows his stuff. As the final question of the interview the Circus owner, Mr Top, fires out the big kahuna:-
Mr Top: Mr Remallo I have one final question for you. Tell me, what is your great weakness?
The Great Remallo: Well, Mr Top, if I had one weakness it would be that I seem to have trouble accurately assessing the level of danger I might be in at any given time, even as a small child when I used to play in traffic. Actually it’s something that really helps me as a lion tamer, I should think that if I ever truley understod the peril I put myself in everyday I would be petrified and never even enter the ring.
Still not convinced? Let’s try the same question for a Software Developer.
"My biggest weakness is that I can’t stand not knowing how things work, it used to drive my family crazy as took everything I owned (and somethings I didn’t) apart in order to see what was going on under the hood. To this day I really struggle to take things at face value if I can’t look and see what is going on. I suppose it’s one of the reasons I became an engineer in the first place, this drive to understand how things works stands me in good stead when wrestling with a gnarly code base or diving deep into library code, bug hunting."
I’m sure you can come up with something better yourself. Just remember if you reframe the question as an opportunity to talk about strengths, it’s then just a question of determining the flip side to that strength and using it as an in.
Anyone else got a good answer to this question?
"So, Mr Johnson, what would you say is your greatest weakness?"
Worst. Interview. Question. Ever.
In isolation, it’s an interesting question to ask yourself, it requires a great deal of honesty and openness on the part of the individual and it requires trust that there will not be repercussions for the answer.
An interview is a place for none of those things. Candidates need, and are expected to, go out of their way to impress their interviewers and actively admitting weakness is a high risk strategy.
And yet it’s popularity remains, company’s still ask it and candidates still find a thousand and one tortured methods to say “I’m a workaholic”. In a novel attempt to get around this, Data Connection used to ask for your three greatest weaknesses. I’d love to know what they gained from this.
So how should this question be answered? From personal experience, responding ‘My left elbow’ sadly does not work.
In comes down to framing, strengths and weaknesses are pretty much alternate views on the same characteristic. Above a certain level of competence it is rare to find people truely good at certain pairings.
For instance, think those people who you admire for their vision. These people are inspiring, charismatic they lift you up and show you a world that you dimly knew existed but couldn’t quite realise. Wonderful people, but tell me, how are they on detail? How good are they are dotting the Is and crossing the Ts and meticulously going through the minutiae of a project, ensuring that everything is as it should be. Not so much huh?
Clearly there will exceptions but Richard Branson, just isn’t a details kind of guy and nor should he be. Conversely I want an Accountant to be exactly the opposite, they need to get down to the details.
Since the question is now framed in terms of strengths it is much easier to answer. Just figure out what strength of yours you wish to highlight, determine how that makes you weak and then go for it.
Not convinced? Here is an example.
Imagine for instance the Great Remallo, Lion Tamer extraordinaire, sitting for an interview. His CV/Resume contains plenty of past experience dealing with many different types of lion and as the inventor of the lion proof cape he clearly knows his stuff. As the final question of the interview the Circus owner, Mr Top, fires out the big kahuna:-
Mr Top: Mr Remallo I have one final question for you. Tell me, what is your great weakness?
The Great Remallo: Well, Mr Top, if I had one weakness it would be that I seem to have trouble accurately assessing the level of danger I might be in at any given time, even as a small child when I used to play in traffic. Actually it’s something that really helps me as a lion tamer, I should think that if I ever truley understod the peril I put myself in everyday I would be petrified and never even enter the ring.
Still not convinced? Let’s try the same question for a Software Developer.
"My biggest weakness is that I can’t stand not knowing how things work, it used to drive my family crazy as took everything I owned (and somethings I didn’t) apart in order to see what was going on under the hood. To this day I really struggle to take things at face value if I can’t look and see what is going on. I suppose it’s one of the reasons I became an engineer in the first place, this drive to understand how things works stands me in good stead when wrestling with a gnarly code base or diving deep into library code, bug hunting."
I’m sure you can come up with something better yourself. Just remember if you reframe the question as an opportunity to talk about strengths, it’s then just a question of determining the flip side to that strength and using it as an in.
Anyone else got a good answer to this question?
Ask yourself whether or not you want to be working for a company that sieves through applicants using washed up interview questions from a 1950's HR textbook.
well, no question is the old or new, or perfect or not.
I believe that what actually happens is that, the person in front of you, has the job you want in his pocket, all you have to do is convince him to take it out, and give it to you. So to convince himself, as long as he doesn't ask you, personal questions, have you ever kissed a girl? you are to deal with it.
I would argue that if somebody asked me that question, it is a signal that I do not, in fact, want the job. It's a red flag that management is not capable of adequately assessing talent, and that you are likely to be surrounded by bozos if you get the job.
In a seller's market, (in this case, the market being labor), the applicant is often interviewing the company just as much as they are interviewing the applicant.
In a seller's market, (in this case, the market being labor), the applicant is often interviewing the company just as much as they are interviewing the applicant.
indeed, but the job is not about working with the person who is asking the question, but with others, and in a big company, not always, one guy recruits all alone, based on one question.
Would you stand up and leave on hearing that question? really?
Yes, because I'm good at what I do and in demand. I'm not going to say I can just pick where I want to work, I'm not that good, but I do have the luxury of being picky about the opportunities I am presented with.
Easy, the answer is: "You of all people are never gonna know!"
[deleted](1)
[deleted]
chocolate
The best response to this question is: "yeah... I think we're done here?". The retards who think this is a good way to filter a good programmer from a bad programmer are idiotic enough to offer you a job because obviously you are exactly the kind of kick-ass person who can shock people awake and repair the defective nature of their company, the fact that working there would be like working at Initech from Office space.
The real source of the question is to sense your desperation levels. If you answer it the canned response way: "turning the negative into the positive". It's a sign across your forehead that says: "please....please.... I'm desperate! Please dominate me!".
Seriously. Just try it once. Laugh at them and excuse yourself, you'll fall off the chair in memorization when you see the job offer pop into your email inbox. I've done it.
It'll leave you with existential questions: wondering who the hell designed this idiotic physics engine we've found ourselves in. How can people survive making these calibre of poor decisions from day to day?
The real source of the question is to sense your desperation levels. If you answer it the canned response way: "turning the negative into the positive". It's a sign across your forehead that says: "please....please.... I'm desperate! Please dominate me!".
Seriously. Just try it once. Laugh at them and excuse yourself, you'll fall off the chair in memorization when you see the job offer pop into your email inbox. I've done it.
It'll leave you with existential questions: wondering who the hell designed this idiotic physics engine we've found ourselves in. How can people survive making these calibre of poor decisions from day to day?
This is absolutely true, and goes for any silly question like 'where do you see yourself in five years?', 'why should we be working with you?', and the like. If you drive conversation to topics that you think should be discussed, you will be respected for it.
Think about it, answering the question: "What's your weakness" politely is "toleration of incompetence". Programmers are not hired as cheerleaders or sensitivity assesment personnel. We are not expected to beat around the bush and be "feel-good" companions. We are expected to get in, get shit compiled, get it working, get it fast and get the hell out. WTF are they doing asking us questions more suited for a hired female companion/prostitute?
The lack of toleration for complete incompetence is what people need. If not-tolerating incompetence loses you out on that interview, seriously, you DO NOT want to work there. They will steal your soul away, and you'll wish you were dead after a few years of working there.
The lack of toleration for complete incompetence is what people need. If not-tolerating incompetence loses you out on that interview, seriously, you DO NOT want to work there. They will steal your soul away, and you'll wish you were dead after a few years of working there.
Wrong. It's exactly the place for both of those things.
For every instance in the class QuestionsAskedToMe, including "What is your greatest weakness?", I have a simple rule: Just tell the fucking truth.
If you're so concerned that the telling the truth in an interview can come back to haunt you, then you shouldn't be interviewing with that company in the first place.
[My answer: I am very impatient. I always have been. People close to me have even pointed it out. (My brother reminds me for every time I make a hasty decision.) Sometimes this has served me well, but it's also caused problems when working with others. I have made a lot of progress trying to be more patient, but I still have a way to go.]