
During interview season, many of us frugal people magically become spendaholics. Nevertheless, we maintain we are still rational because the end goal of a higher-paying job can justify virtually any purchase. In college, my friend spent $10 for high-quality resume paper. I myself managed to shell out $25 for a leather folder since it had an emblem of Stanford. And it appears the scale increases as you gain experience. Career adviser Penelope Trunk admits to spending more than $1,000 to hire a resume writer, and suggests you do the same. Is all of this spending necessary?
I could write years of articles on what purchases I find useful, but that would really miss the point. These purchases are individual and depend on preferences. My leather folder helped give me confidence, just as my friend’s resume paper was part of his strategy. Penelope Trunk believes strongly in her method. I am here to make a different point. My point is that we often make these purchases in the pursuit of a misguided goal: that we need to be perfect for a job interview.
Striving for perfection, I will suggest, is not only a misguided effort, but it is also an incorrect strategy. I will explain why by discussing one of the most common interview questions.
What’s your greatest weakness?
A perfect applicant does not have any weakness. Therefore, if you follow conventional wisdom and want to appear perfect, you must avoid answering this question.
I was first told this advice in my 9th grade course, a class where were taught the correct answer is to respond with a trait that’s really a hidden strength. Answers like “I’m so hard working that I often work right through lunch” were awarded full credit. I have since seen similar advice at the Stanford career center, in an interview guide at Vault and in a CNN Money article.
But there is a hidden cost to providing such answers. It takes time to prepare them, and since they are so concocted, they might make you look fake and robotic. And in the end of the day, it’s not necessary to lie or skirt around the issue.
My answer and its philosophical justification
I am honest when I answer about my greatest weakness. I reply that my greatest weakness is being too academic. When pressed for time, I often want to discover the solution myself when I should instead be asking someone with experience for help. It’s a weakness that I work on.
I always wondered why my answer resonated with interviewers, who specifically take an extra effort to compliment my response. But I always felt nervous that I was going against virtually every career advice I was ever taught. Why should answering with a real weakness help?
Here is one reason why. Perhaps the greatest career advice I have received came from my uncle. The advice was not about skills or resume tricks but about personal relationships. He told me it is of utmost importance to show that you are fun and genuine. If you think about it, an interview is really about learning an applicant’s personality and answering the question, “Do I want to work with this person?” And across most offices there is one constant: people hire applicants that will become productive and fun co-workers.
In that light, my honest answer helped me demonstrate that I was a genuine person. I was not a projection of my carefully constructed paper resume. I admitted a flaw and that made me more human.
Imperfection is what makes us whole and human
I recently came across an article that discussed perfection in philosophical terms. The passage comes from Rabbi Harold S. Kushner who believes striving for perfection is one of the biggest mistakes we make.
I liked the entire article, but by far the most interesting example concerns a very personal and serious event. Kushner was giving a sermon on Yom Kippur a year after his son of 14 years had died. He wanted to explain how he kept his faith strong in the face of such tragedy. He recounts the monumental sermon, which discusses perfection and life’s journey:
I took my text from a little book called The Missing Piece by Shel Silverstein, which I can describe only as a fairy tale for adults. It tells the story of a circle that was missing a piece. A large triangular wedge had been cut out of it. The circle wanted to be whole with nothing missing, so it went around looking for its missing piece. But because it was incomplete and therefore could roll only very slowly, it admired the flowers along the way. It chatted with worms. It enjoyed the sunshine. It found lots of different pieces, but none of them fit. So it left them all by the side of the road and kept on searching.
Then one day the circle found a piece that fit perfectly. It was so happy. Now it could be whole, with nothing missing. It incorporated the missing piece into itself and began to roll. Now that it was a perfect circle, it could roll very fast, too fast to notice the flowers or talk to the worms. When it realized how different the world seemed when it rolled so quickly, it stopped, left its found piece by the side of the road and rolled slowly away.
The lesson of the story, I suggested, was that in some strange sense we are more whole when we are missing something. The man who has everything is in some ways a poor man. He will never know what it feels like to yearn, to hope, to nourish his soul with the dream of something better. He will never know the experience of having someone who loves him give him something he has always wanted and never had.
There is a wholeness about the person who has come to terms with his limitations, who has been brave enough to let go of his unrealistic dreams and not feel like a failure for doing do.
Source: Kushner, Harold S. “You Don’t have to be Perfect.” Reader’s Digest May 1997: 167-68. [formatted by easybib.com]
The bottom line
I struggle with perfection and adequacy many times in my life. Am I eating the right diet? Am I exercising enough? Am I doing all that I can to make my interview perfect?
When I find my efforts going overboard, I now step back and think about Kushner’s advice. It is our duty to do the right things, but it is not our goal to be perfect. Let go of your missing piece and be whole.
For more timely, relevant, and engaging articles, subscribe to Brazen Careerist.
Recent Comments
Popular Posts
4 RESPONSES TO "YOU KNOW, IT'S PROBABLY BETTER FOR YOU TO STOP TRYING TO BE PERFECT"
I also 'struggle' with perfection to this day. Thankfully it is much less of a struggle every waking day as I'm able to identify my limitations and work to resolve my own conflicts - easily the most difficult to overcome.
You say -"When pressed for time, I often want to discover the solution myself when I should instead be asking someone with experience for help." I also have worked on this dilemma. I enjoy the problem solving process but there are many times that time limitations dictate require asking for and receiving help to obtain the answer much faster. I have also found that perfection will leave you working on a task by yourself. When you set the detailed path and results for a project by yourself that's exactly where you'll find yourself - by yourself. It's OK as long as that was your intention and that's where you want to be. Otherwise be a part of the team. It really depends on the task at hand and your preferences. Do you want to be a man, struggle with a map, drive around in circles, and get even more lost or just ask somebody for directions. :)
Thanks all for the comments.
Mark W.: Yes, it was a big change to start working as a team instead of an individual. I used to work in study groups, but office projects were much different.
Chas Grundy: Excellent point. I think there's a line in the Matrix about how early versions were not believable since people were too happy. Reality is imperfect, though we often try to be perfect and that causes many problems.
Julie Cajigas: I see your point but I do view being too independent as a real weakness. Behind closed doors many business people laugh at academics for worrying about decimals and punctuation rather than the big points.
It reminds me of early computer animated films: they weren't believable because it was too perfect. There was no dirt, no scratches on surfaces, the shadows were too crisp. It wasn't realistic.
Nobody's perfect. If a prospect appears too perfect, then many interviewers pause to ask themselves - what is he hiding? why isn't he more successful? why is he leaving his current position?
It's ok to show some flaws in an interview - but you have to balance those with opportunities to improve. They have to be easily overlooked.
I would suggest that being "too Academic" is right up there with working so hard that you forget to have lunch.
It's a good answer to the question, but it still sounds like a hidden strength to me.
It's easy to say "you don't have to be perfect, give a real weakness" when your real weakness isn't "I struggle with waking up and am occasionally late" or "I don't write as well as I should."
Otherwise- good point, and extra bonus points for using Shel Silverstein :).
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY?