[dpdp_]

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?

[huggyface]

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.

[dpdp_]

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.

[huggyface]

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.