Hey everyone,
I’m seeing a lot more overqualified candidates in our pipeline lately, especially for software engineering roles. Many of them openly say they’re looking to “downsize”. Sure, it’s less responsibility, less pressure, and more predictable work.
For example, we recently interviewed a senior backend engineer who’d previously owned large systems and mentored teams. He applied for a mid-level role focused mostly on maintaining existing services and shipping small features. He was very clear that he wanted to step back. But during the interview, he kept suggesting architectural changes and talking about how he’d “usually” approach things at a higher level. It left us wondering whether he’d really be satisfied once the role settled into its day-to-day rhythm.
That’s the part I struggle with. Even when candidates say they want to downshift, I worry about role satisfaction, retention, and whether they’ll eventually feel underutilized or frustrated. In a dev team, that mismatch can show up fast.
So, how are others handling this in tech hiring? Do you take candidates at their word when they say they want to downsize? Do you treat these hires differently, or is it just a risk you accept in the current market?
Curious how others are thinking about this.
We've definitely seen this trend too, and honestly, I've become more cautious about it after a few situations where the "downsizing" candidates ended up being restless within 6-several months. I usually dig deeper into their specific motivations and try to paint a realistic picture of the day-to-day work during screening.
I've run into this exact scenario multiple times, and you're right to be cautious. What I've found helpful is being really explicit about the role's limitations during the interview process - like literally walking through a typical week and asking how they'd feel about NOT being the one making those bigger architectural decisions. The integration challenges we've had with our ATS actually helped here in a weird way, because it forced us to have more detailed conversations upfront rather than rushing through screenings. I'd say trust your gut on the cultural fit piece - if they're already trying to redesign your systems in the interview, that's probably a preview of what's coming.
This resonates so much with what we've been navigating lately. I've started doing what I call "reality check conversations" where I actually show candidates the Jira board and walk them through our current sprint - the mundane bug fixes, the incremental feature updates, the legacy code maintenance. It's amazing how many people's enthusiasm shifts when they see the actual day-to-day work versus the job description.
What's helped us recently is being more systematic about assessing motivation during screening calls. We've been able to dig deeper into the "why" behind their career shift before investing interview time. The tricky part is that some of these senior folks genuinely do want to step back, but they need to understand that "stepping back" doesn't mean they get to be the sage advisor - it means doing the work that needs doing, even when it's not intellectually stimulating. I've found that candidates who can articulate specific lifestyle reasons (family time, burnout recovery, etc.) tend to be more realistic about the trade-offs than those who just say they want "less stress."
This is such a timely discussion! We've been dealing with this exact scenario, and I've learned that the "reality check" approach really works - though I'd add that timing matters a lot. We started having these deeper motivation conversations earlier in our process, which has saved everyone time and helped us identify candidates who are genuinely prepared for the shift versus those who might be romanticizing it.
One thing that's helped us is asking candidates to describe a typical "boring" day at their previous role and how they felt about those moments, because that often reveals whether they can actually find satisfaction in less complex work or if they'll start pushing for bigger challenges within a few months.
That's a smart approach - the "boring day" question is brilliant for getting past the surface-level responses. In my experience with manufacturing roles, we've found that candidates who genuinely want to downshift usually have very specific reasons tied to life changes or burnout recovery, and they can articulate what they're actually seeking rather than just what they're avoiding. The ones who struggle most are those who say they want less responsibility but then immediately start proposing process improvements during onboarding - it's almost like they can't help themselves.
Yeah, we've hit this exact issue with several candidates lately - they say they want to step back but then spend the whole interview redesigning our client intake process. I've started asking them to walk me through what a typical "low-key" workday would look like to them, because the disconnect usually shows up pretty quickly.
That's such a smart approach! I've found that asking candidates to describe their ideal workday really reveals whether they've thought through what "stepping back" actually means day-to-day. We had a similar situation where a former tech lead kept talking about process improvements during the interview, and when we dug deeper, it became clear he was hoping the role would naturally expand - which wasn't what we needed at the time. I think the key is being really transparent about the role's scope and growth trajectory upfront, because some candidates genuinely do want less responsibility while others are just hoping to use it as a stepping stone back up.
We've been seeing this trend too, and honestly it's one of the trickier assessment challenges right now. What's helped us is being very explicit about the role boundaries during the interview process - I'll literally walk through what a typical week looks like and ask candidates to reflect on whether that aligns with their energy levels and career goals at this stage. The retention risk is real though, especially when market conditions shift and those "stepping stone" motivations start surfacing again.
I've found that being really transparent about growth opportunities (or lack thereof) during the process helps set better expectations. We started doing "day in the life" conversations where candidates talk through how they'd handle typical scenarios in the role - it's surprising how often someone realizes mid-conversation that they'd naturally want to expand beyond the scope we're offering. The tricky part is that even when candidates are genuinely ready to step back, their instincts and experience often kick in once they're actually in the role, which can create tension with teammates who are operating at the intended level.
I've run into this exact scenario across different business units, and that "day in the life" approach is spot on. What I've started doing is involving the actual team lead in those conversations - they can usually pick up on whether someone's truly ready to operate at that level or if they'll unconsciously push for more scope. The challenge is that even genuine candidates sometimes underestimate how hard it is to dial back their natural problem-solving instincts once they're embedded in the day-to-day work.
From a manufacturing perspective, I've found that structured behavioral interviews help surface whether candidates can genuinely operate within defined boundaries - we ask specific scenarios about times they had to follow established processes rather than innovate. The key indicator I watch for is how they respond when you explicitly outline the role's constraints and decision-making limits during the interview process. What's tricky is that even well-intentioned candidates often don't realize how challenging it can be to suppress their instinct to optimize and improve systems once they're in the role.
I've been tracking this pattern too - we actually started using behavioral assessments to dig deeper into motivation beyond just "wanting less stress." The challenge is that even when candidates are sincere about downshifting, many underestimate how hard it is to watch processes they could improve but aren't empowered to change.