I recruited for a design tooling company with a very similar culture profile to Figma. Not Figma directly, but close enough that what I'm about to say maps pretty well based on what candidates I've coached have reported.
Figma's behavioral questions cluster around a few real themes:
Collaboration and conflict. They build a collaborative product. They want to know you can work through disagreement without torching a relationship. Expect: "Tell me about a time you disagreed with a decision that got made anyway. What did you do?" and "Describe a project where you had to align multiple stakeholders."
Impact and ownership. Not just "I was part of the team that..." but what specifically you drove. Questions like: "What's the project you're most proud of and what would you have done differently?" They're checking whether you know your own contributions clearly.
Ambiguity tolerance. Figma has grown fast. Things change. They want: "Tell me about a time you had to make a call without enough information." Candidates who hate ambiguity often flag themselves here.
Design sense for engineers. Even for SWE roles, they appreciate people who can articulate why they made a technical decision in terms of user experience. Not "I chose this architecture" but "I chose this architecture because it made the feature feel instant to users even on slow connections."
The values that seem to matter most from candidate feedback I've collected: craft, directness, humility without false modesty, and genuine curiosity about what users do with the product.
One pattern that tanks candidates: using "we" the entire time without a single "I." They know it's usually a team effort. They still need to know what you did. If you're the person who enables everyone else, say that explicitly.