Could the weakness as 'I like speed and sometimes get frustrated by long projects and slow processes' work or it hesitate the interviewer? The prevention methods are the clear milestons and the final picture (I'd be happy to hear your own opinion, not from the chat gpt)

Cristian is giving you a high-value signal here, and he’s right: "I get frustrated by slow processes" is a classic, safe answer that, while technically true, is used so often it acts as an immediate red flag for low self-awareness. It doesn't hesitate the interviewer so much as it confirms you're playing the generic interview game, not the strategic one.

The reason this answer fails is twofold. First, it’s a strength in disguise, which defeats the purpose of the vulnerability check. Second, consulting, especially at the senior level, is inherently slow—it involves managing internal politics, dealing with slow-moving client bureaucracy, and building consensus over months. If your key weakness is impatience with slow processes, the interviewer hears: "This person might struggle with the reality of client relationship management."

Instead of focusing on speed or perfectionism, pivot to a vulnerability related to interpersonal execution or management style that is demonstrably coachable. For instance: "I have historically struggled with effective delegation because I felt accountable for every detail, but I am now systematically using time-blocking to hand off tasks and trust my teams." Or: "My default is to focus on pure data when giving feedback, and I sometimes overlook the emotional context, which I am actively working on by pre-drafting my delivery methods."

A strong weakness shows maturity and self-reflection. They are testing whether you know how to improve. Pick something real, explain the impact it had on a project, and detail the systematic steps you are taking to address it. That is the transparency they appreciate.

Hope it helps!

Hi! Former McKinsey Senior Interviewe here.

Short answer: No, this weakness does not work. And yes, it actively hurts you.

“I like speed and get frustrated by slow processes” fails the weakness question on three levels.

1) It signals low self-awareness, not drive

Interviewers hear this every day. Because it is so common, it no longer reads as authentic. It reads as rehearsed. At MBB, a rehearsed answer is worse than an imperfect one.

They are not checking whether you can spin a weakness.
They are checking whether you can diagnose yourself accurately under pressure.

This answer does not pass that test.

2) It contradicts the actual job

Contrary to the cliché, Consulting is slow on many fronts - by design:

• Stakeholder alignment
• Political trade-offs
• Consensus building
• Iterative decision making

Speed without patience breaks projects. If your stated weakness is impatience with slow processes, the interviewer hears:

“This person may struggle with the core reality of client work.”

That is not a yellow flag. That is a red one.

3) It dodges the vulnerability test

This question is not about mitigation tactics.
It is about whether you can own something uncomfortable.

“Clear milestones and the final picture help me” is a coping mechanism, not a weakness. It avoids talking about real impact on others or on results.

What a strong answer actually does

A top-tier weakness answer has four elements:

1. A real behavioral limitation
2. A specific negative consequence on team or outcome
3. Evidence of self-diagnosis, not just feedback received
4. Concrete behavior change, already in action

Most candidates miss at least two of these.

Example of a much stronger answer (calibrated for MBB)

“Earlier in my career, I underestimated how much alignment work is required before decisions can move. I would push solutions quickly, assuming logic alone would carry the room.

On one project, this created resistance. The answer was right, but stakeholders felt excluded, which slowed execution instead of speeding it up.

I realized the issue wasn’t speed, it was sequencing. I was optimizing for answers before optimizing for buy-in.

Since then, I’ve changed how I work. I pre-wire key stakeholders early, explicitly ask where resistance might come from, and test drafts one-on-one before formal reviews. The irony is that projects now move faster, because fewer decisions get revisited.”

Why this works:

• It admits a REAL flaw
• It shows maturity about consulting dynamics
• It reframes improvement as learning the job, not “fixing a personality”
• It reassures the interviewer without sounding defensive

The meta-point interviewers care about

They are not asking:

“What is your weakness?”

They are asking:

“When reality contradicts your instincts, can you adapt?”

Your original answer suggests frustration.
The stronger answer demonstrates judgment evolution.

That difference is exactly what separates strong candidates from average ones at MBB.

Hope this helps!
Sidi

___________________

Dr. Sidi S. Koné

Honestly, it sounds like a 'fake' negative.

It sounds like you don't really want to share something that you're actually struggling with. 

And you should. 

And then you should explain the steps that you've taken to improve it. 

They'll know it's honest and they'll appreciate your transparency. 

Best,
Cristian