Community Discussion
r/ExperiencedDevs
principal engineer. 13 years in. just got rejected from a senior role because i "lacked confidence" in the interview
Sometimes the hiring process reveals its absurdity so clearly it could be satire. A principal engineer with 13 years of experience, who leads a team of 12 and presents to boards, applied for a senior role (a step down from their current position) and was rejected for "lacking confidence." The developer community's response was swift, unified, and telling.
The thread exploded with recognition. Not surprise but recognition. Because apparently, this kind of feedback is common enough that hundreds of experienced developers immediately understood exactly what happened.
That's just randomness. Some idiot watched you on the call and had some vibe. This is the real issue with interviewing, people will ding your application for no sensible reason.
The bluntness here cuts through all the HR speak. "Some idiot watched you on the call and had some vibe" might sound harsh, but it captures something important: the arbitrary nature of subjective interview feedback. When someone with proven leadership experience gets dinged for confidence, you're evaluating performance art rather than competence.
yeah interviews are such a weird artificial environment, i've seen brilliant engineers completely bomb them while mediocre people nail the performance aspect
Don't worry. It's not about you it's about stupid process of evaluating ppl. As staff I am going through 6-8 step interviews only to hear in the end that I was rejected citations: "During the presentation I was asked questions". I was presenting my old company project to bunch of strangers who asked me literally 5 questions during 1h session. XD Another one was from system design where they delegate developer who don't know what is inbox and outbox pattern. I was explaining it for 20min like to junior. Given feedback: "to complicated solution, principals should lead towards simplicity". Dont give a fuck man
This comment tells two stories that land like a one-two punch. First: getting rejected for being asked questions during a presentation. As if questions during presentations are... bad? Second: explaining a concept to someone who doesn't understand it, then being told your solution was "too complicated." The irony is so thick you could spread it on toast.
The Vibe Check Problem
You didn't pass the vibe check. Simple as that. It was just a subjective decision in there end, nothing you could do better or different. It's like fishing. Sometimes the fish just doesn't like your setup or doesn't feel like biting
"Vibe check" is internet slang, but it perfectly describes what happened here. The fishing analogy works too because sometimes it really is that random. But here's what makes this particularly maddening: companies dress up these vibe checks as professional evaluations, complete with structured feedback forms and multi-round processes.
When the feedback is "lacks confidence," what they're really saying is "didn't feel right to us." Which is fine as feedback goes, but let's call it what it is: a gut reaction dressed up as professional assessment.
Every interview has an element of randomness. Remember that what's being evaluated is not you as a person, but rather a version of you on a 45 minute interview by a random stranger who comes in with all sorts of biases and expectations. I currently work at a mag7 company as a senior engineer, but during the same interview cycle I was rejected by 2 small startups for not being senior enough (for much less pay and a lesser title). It happens. Try retroing it and see what you could do better. Squeezing 13 yoe into a 45 minutes interview is hard, and you need to make sure you have a well-structured story.
This is the most constructive response in the thread, and it highlights something crucial: the person being evaluated isn't you but "interview you." The version of yourself that exists in a 45-minute artificial environment, talking to strangers who know nothing about your actual work.
The Overqualification Trap
Have you considered that applying for a lower role than your current position could bias them against you? e.g. "What's someone with this level of experience doing applying for a lower level role? This doesn't seem right." That's my 2 cents
This cuts to the heart of a catch-22 many experienced professionals face. You apply for roles at your level and get told you're overqualified or too expensive. You apply for roles below your level to get your foot in the door, and suddenly you're suspicious. What's someone with principal-level experience doing here? There must be something wrong with them.
The Overqualification Double Bind
Apply at Your Level
"Too senior, too expensive, we need someone who can grow into the role"
Apply Below Your Level
"Why are you applying here? What's wrong with you? Seems like a red flag"
The "lacking confidence" feedback starts to make more sense in this context. Maybe the interviewer was thinking: "If they were really confident, why would they apply here?" The logic is circular, but it happens.
What This Really Means
The thread reveals something important about how broken the hiring process has become. When someone with proven leadership experience gets rejected for confidence, we're evaluating how well someone performs the role of "confident interview candidate" rather than job performance.
The randomness is the quiet part said out loud. Every experienced professional knows this happens, but we rarely acknowledge it directly. Sometimes you don't get the job because of chemistry, timing, or whether the interviewer had a good lunch. Sometimes the person evaluating your system design doesn't understand system design. Sometimes "lacks confidence" means "didn't match our mental image of what confidence looks like."
Key Takeaways
- Interview skills and job skills are different competencies—being great at one doesn't guarantee the other
- "Lacks confidence" is often code for "didn't match our subjective expectations"
- Applying below your level can backfire by making interviewers suspicious of your motivations
- Even extensive experience doesn't protect you from arbitrary interview feedback
- The hiring process has a significant element of randomness that's largely out of your control