I have been insanely busy lately trying to keep up with the schoolwork. I find that once I start to think I might be finished with all of assignments I need to do, there is another one that pops up.
I was just thinking to myself for a little bit about the concept of weaknesses. I am under the impression that people in general do not want to admit they have any weaknesses. Everybody wants to give a good impression by nature. It leads me to the question: how can focusing on the negatives benefit an individual's attitude?
I find it fascinating that potential employers always ask the question, "What are your strengths and weaknesses?" It seems like a question that can set the interviewee up for failure. In hindsight or as an objective party listening to how somebody else answered that question, we might be able to say, "oh, you should have led with your strengths and only briefly mentioned your weaknesses." Yet, in the moment, how would any individual respond to that question to their own satisfaction?
Even when I try to come up with weaknesses now, I first think of qualities that are only mild weaknesses if weaknesses at all. As such, if put on the spot, I might say "honesty" or "analytical thinker". Honesty might be a weakness depending on what job you are vying for in the interview. If interviewing to be a car salesperson, honesty might be a bad quality to have because you have to start out selling at a high price and get negotiated down. An honest person might hear the sob story of a single mother with five kids and want to start the price lower or tell her about a different car lot with better deals. Yet, one has to consider their own livelihood. As such, it would be a moral dilemma everyday with an honest salesperson. As well, an analytical thinker might not be best for a mundane job. Sure, it works for Toyota, where it is encouraged for all employees to come up with improvements for the car assembly plants. In that setting, you can be an analytical thinker. However, maybe in other factory settings, it is a more "put your head down and focus on just your work all day" kind of atmosphere. Thus, analytical thinkers need not apply.
I wonder if it would be best to simply only give strengths in your answer. When asked about weaknesses, claim to not have any at all. I wonder if that is the sort of person employers want, a person with so much confidence that they do not see their weaknesses as weaknesses at all. Weaknesses are simply areas in life for which we can grow. God may not have put us on this earth as perfect, but we all have the potential to be our best possible selves.
In any case, weaknesses are normal and we all have them. Well, except fictional characters like Rambo. That character did not have weaknesses. He only spoke when he had something to say and showed his skills through action. I wonder how Rambo would answer a question like "what are your strengths and weaknesses?" It would not surprise me if he just stared into the eyes of the employer for a long time and said, "Hire me and I'll show you." It makes me wonder if that is a viable answer as well.
People are not like cars. Should we even have to admit to a stranger that we have weaknesses and report them (people faxes instead of car faxes)? Shouldn't employers be able to look at a resume and talk to references to assess this question instead of putting a potential employee on the spot? "Tell me where you're vulnerable, so I can assess who of these candidates is least vulnerable. Yet, any one of these candidates could have lied to me in the process and I would be none the wiser." Is this reasonable?
No comments:
Post a Comment