The interview question, “What would you say are their strongest attributes?” is a strategically complex prompt. It moves beyond assessing personal skills and evaluates a candidate’s capacity for professional observation and sound judgment. Interviewers use this question to gauge how a prospective employee analyzes and articulates the positive qualities of former colleagues or managers. Answering effectively demonstrates a nuanced understanding of high performance within a professional setting.
Understanding the Intent Behind the Question
The interviewer is seeking far more than a simple recitation of positive traits. A primary goal is to assess the candidate’s professional judgment and ability to accurately identify behaviors that lead to high performance and organizational success. This selection process reveals the candidate’s own standards for workplace excellence and what they recognize as valuable contribution.
The question also serves as a measure of professional maturity, testing whether the candidate can articulate observations objectively and positively without any hint of personal bias or resentment. The traits a candidate chooses to highlight illuminate their understanding of effective leadership and successful collaboration. The choice of attributes is a direct reflection of the candidate’s professional character and capacity for objective analysis.
Strategic Preparation and Selection of Attributes
Effective preparation requires selecting attributes that are relevant to the professional world and verifiable through concrete examples. The chosen traits must align directly with the company’s values, mission, or the specific requirements of the role. For instance, an attribute supporting innovation suits a research position, while a focus on meticulous compliance is better for a risk management role.
The selected attribute must be supported by a specific, impactful workplace scenario, not a vague generalization. Candidates should avoid surface-level traits, such as “always on time,” unless they resulted in a measurable professional outcome, like improved team morale. The goal is to choose traits that communicate a sophisticated understanding of professional impact.
Framing Your Answer with Professional Context
Delivering the answer requires a structured narrative approach, transforming a simple observation into a compelling piece of evidence. Utilizing a consistent framework, such as the STAR method (Situation, Task, Action, Result), provides the necessary mechanism for contextualizing the chosen attribute. This method moves the discussion beyond subjective opinion and places the focus squarely on the demonstrated impact of the colleague’s behavior within a business setting.
The narrative begins by setting the stage (Situation) and explaining the objective that needed to be achieved (Task). This context establishes the difficulty and magnitude of the challenge the colleague faced. The core of the answer then details the specific actions the former colleague took that exemplified the chosen attribute (Action). This description must be precise in detailing the measurable behavior. Concluding with the Result explains the positive professional outcome that occurred because of the observed attribute, thereby validating its strength.
Attributes to Highlight and Why
The selection of attributes should focus on qualities that drive organizational success. These traits must reflect the candidate’s understanding of complex business operations and team dynamics, not simple interpersonal preferences. The attributes chosen project the candidate’s own professional aspirations and standards.
Strategic Thinking and Vision
Highlighting a colleague’s ability to see the “big picture” effectively communicates the candidate’s own future-focused mindset. This attribute involves recognizing how day-to-day decisions align with long-term organizational goals, often allowing the colleague to anticipate market shifts or internal challenges before they materialize. When a candidate observes and values this ability, it suggests they understand the importance of moving beyond tactical execution toward sustained, high-level business planning. This choice signals an appreciation for leadership that shapes rather than simply reacts to the operating environment.
Emotional Intelligence and Empathy
Recognizing strong emotional intelligence (EQ) in a former teammate indicates the candidate values healthy team dynamics and effective collaboration. This attribute encompasses the ability to manage one’s own emotions and recognize the emotions of others, leading to smoother conflict resolution and stronger interpersonal relationships. By choosing this trait, the candidate shows they understand that successful project delivery often relies as much on managing team morale and internal friction as it does on technical proficiency. This signals an awareness of the human element in complex projects and the management of stakeholder expectations.
Resilient Problem-Solving
Focusing on resilient problem-solving demonstrates an appreciation for persistence and adaptability, particularly when faced with unexpected setbacks or high-pressure timelines. This attribute is characterized by the ability to absorb negative results, quickly re-evaluate the approach, and maintain constructive forward momentum rather than becoming paralyzed by failure. Highlighting this trait suggests the candidate values a “growth mindset” and views obstacles as temporary challenges that require flexible and sustained effort. This shows the candidate values a colleague who can sustain performance through adversity.
Effective Communication
Choosing effective communication allows the candidate to emphasize the importance of clarity, transparency, and active listening within an organizational structure. This attribute is not merely about speaking clearly, but about ensuring information flows accurately between different departments and stakeholders, often preventing costly misunderstandings or delays. When a candidate notices and values a colleague’s ability to mediate conflict or distill complex data into accessible formats, it shows they understand the organizational impact of clear informational exchange and efficient decision-making.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
A common mistake is providing overly generic or surface-level answers, such as stating a colleague “worked hard” without specific context or quantifiable outcome. Such responses fail to demonstrate the necessary depth of professional observation expected in a high-stakes interview. Candidates must also strictly avoid sounding critical, jealous, or resentful toward the former colleague, as this reflects poorly on the candidate’s professional maturity and ability to collaborate.
Another subtle pitfall involves selecting attributes that inadvertently reflect negatively on the candidate. The focus must remain entirely positive and centered on the colleague’s proactive contribution to the team’s success. Attributes irrelevant to the job function, such as personal hobbies or non-work related habits, should be omitted to keep the discussion strictly professional and focused on business impact.
Tailoring the Answer to the Role
The final step involves explicitly linking the observed attribute directly back to the demands of the open position. If the job description emphasizes cross-functional collaboration and stakeholder management, then highlighting a colleague’s Emotional Intelligence becomes highly relevant. Conversely, if the role is a senior position focused on long-range business development, the discussion should center on Strategic Thinking and Vision.
This connection is made by concluding the narrative with a statement that demonstrates how recognizing and valuing that specific trait prepares the candidate to replicate success in the new environment. By showing the interviewer the relationship between the observed behavior and the expected performance in the new role, the candidate translates an observation about a former colleague into a statement about their own professional readiness.