Dear Reader,
This is the third and final post in this series about grave interview mistakes. If you missed the second post, Negative Nancy Fumbles the Most Basic Interview Question, you can check it out here.
The Interview Project
If you are interviewing in tech or in a data-adjacent field, you might be asked to complete a project as part of your interview. Typically, the project is completed on (unpaid) personal time, and a portion of the interview is dedicated to walking through your analysis and defending your decisions. This was my experience interviewing for a data science position at a big tech company.
I was given three projects to choose from. I immediately discarded one since it was outside my wheelhouse and, frankly, didn’t interest me. Out of the remaining two projects – which I will call Project A and Project B for convenience – Project A was firmly within my skillset, whereas Project B was a stretch assignment.
I went with Project B.
And if you’re reading this blog post, you can probably guess how that turned out.
Hint: If I could go back in time, I would choose Project A.
The Lesson
In my reasoning, because Project A played to my strengths – and this is where my inner Negative Nancy hijacked the narrative – I thought of it as the “easy” project. In my mind, “easy” meant unimpressive. If I wanted to stand out, I needed to pick the flashier, more difficult project. So I went with Project B. Never mind that it was outside of my depth or that, for extraneous reasons, I only had three days to complete it (while others often take weeks to prepare). I convinced myself that my strengths would not be enough.
Unsurprisingly, although I built something that worked, it did not withstand the interview panel’s probing questions. When they quizzed me on why I selected one approach versus another, it became apparent that my working knowledge on the subject was superficial.
To be clear, we should never stop trying new things, and making mistakes is part of the learning process. However, interviews are opportunities to showcase mastery, not burgeoning skills (cough, cough, weaknesses).
Here are a few reasons why I think it pays to play to your strengths when given the choice:
- You perform with authority. When you operate within your zone of competence, confidence follows naturally. Your explanations are clearer. Your delivery is more polished because you’re not scrambling to fill knowledge gaps in real time.
- Your strengths might be exactly what they need. What if the skillset required for Project A was precisely the type of skillset the team was hoping to add? If most candidates chose the flashier option, choosing the fundamentals – and executing them well – could make you memorable for the right reasons.
- Weaknesses demand runway. The real mistake wasn’t selecting Project B; it was selecting it under a compressed timeline. The further a project sits from your comfort zone, the more time you need to build genuine understanding. If you’re short on time, that is not the moment to experiment.
Conclusion
In summary, growth belongs in practice. Interviews are performance. There is a time to stretch and a time to showcase. Choose the work that lets you stand firmly on what you already know, especially when you are short on time. Your strengths are not the “easy” option – they are the skills you’ve earned through hard work and dedication to your craft.
— Recovering Negative Nancy