Answering Biggest Flaw Question With Poise

I was helping a friend prepare for a job interview recently, and we got to the "What's your biggest flaw?" question. This question is hard to answer for most people because it's very effective at narrowing down the pool of candidates.

The friend heard advice that they should answer with a strength masked as a flaw. However, I question that strategy because an experienced HR professional will likely see right through it. The traits they'll gauge from such an answer depend on them, but it can vary from "prepared" to "coached" or "reserved"; or they can treat the answer as "you'll find out once you hire me", which isn't great either.

The truth is that the vast majority of job applicants they interview (if not all) are human. Even the non-human ones are flawed, and answering that question genuinely can help the applicant build their rapport, show maturity and openness to feedback, both of which are crucial for most roles.

All applicants want to present themselves in the best light possible, so answering the question that gives you most sway to stand out with a response that tells the interviewer to kindly mind their own business is not the best choice. You should avoid generic and vague responses at all costs.

This question is also the opposite of the "What's your biggest strength?" one, but both are asking the same thing - they're just framed differently to allow the candidate to describe their self-concept and values. Dual framing makes it easier for the candidate to showcase both traits they're proud of and those they view as negative (although not necessarily so, depending on the extent). The qualities you refer to are all your own; which side you attribute them to merely gives insight into where your values lie.

The answer gives insight into the candidate self-awareness, emotional intelligence, and authenticity under pressure. That's the idea behind those two questions, at least. Of course, you can try to play the system like 60% of other candidates who've heard the same advice, but you're missing the point of those questions by doing so. By listing strengths masked as flaws, you're simply telling the interviewer they can't take what you say/write at face value, which is arguably putting you in a more challenging position because they now have to exert additional effort to parse what you're really like.

Example

If I were applying for a senior software engineer or adjacent leadership role, for instance, I might answer like this:

Note how each item connects directly to the role. I didn't mention my amazing cooking skills or my chronically online vocabulary acqueintednitition. I also haven't disclosed any personality traits beyond those that would affect my work performance. Regardless of company size, the question gauges your fit within a professional work environment, not a high school clique.

The last row shows that I understand the question... and that I'm very "communicative"... sometimes to a fault even. But for a senior engineer, that's a better problem than silence while the team drowns in uncertainty. In person I'd clarify that I'm talkative when comfortable; otherwise, I tend to be more reserved. Writing the same trait twice also provides comedic relief, which grants me slightly more spotlight than some other grumpy-pants contestants will get. Bam! Three flies with one row.

Planning and finding new solutions to problems (i.e. research) are crucial for the role, and I'd fulfil that well, given that it's not a personal side project.

Lack of experience is a significant flaw for this position, although I believe I can compensate with strong research skills and the ability to pick up new knowledge quickly when motivated. I did run a successful craft business before continuing my study, though I was only responsible for my own lack of sleep, so that doesn't translate that well.

Being too passionate is the primary source of conflict. Years of FOSS collaboration have taught me to explain, gracefully yet firmly, why someone is completely and utterly wrong. Of course, if a subordinate refuses to budge, things can get tricky.

All that doesn't mean I'm closed to feedback; I’ve learned to question myself before raising issues with others. Experience would give me the wisdom to resolve these situations more effectively. Until then, I'd have to lean on my INT stat, peers and management resources, such as books and articles - that's how you earn XP in the first place, no?

Lastly, "Code not invented here" (NIH) is jargon for the tendency to sometimes reinvent the wheel. While this trait can waste work hours on solutions that already exist, it's also beneficial because it allows me to build up the company's intellectual property and give it a competitive edge.

Any junior engineer can add a dependency (e.g. on CEL) and call it a day. Still, if at any point the requirements surpass provisions offered by the dependency, it's not as trivial to fork or build an alternative from scratch. This is where that flaw flips into a strength - and a very important one for a senior developer. A company that only ever glues together third-party libraries isn't building any competitive advantage.

Planning, in contrast, helps me manage the NIH flaw: I always assess the state of the ecosystem before the project starts, and collect resources needed to lead the project to a conclusion (a successful one (hopefully)).

You can probably tell from my elaboration that this question goes way beyond a simple good vs. evil dichotomy. It gives your application depth and showcases the war scars that taught you lessons you can bring to your new role. That was the point all along. Answering genuinely makes you stand out from those 60% of losers who will only briefly touch upon why they're so great, as if the interviewer isn't well aware that all the applicants are a perfect fit.

It's possible that whoever initially proposed to mask strengths as flaws actually meant something along these lines, but the message got misconstrued through generations of loretwisting and job coaching. So I guess, you're like really lucky you've read this piece, you're welcome.