This interview was everything I hate and think is wrong in tech. It consisted of two calls - recruiter and hiring manager. Recruiter was typical. Although I found them pompous. The hiring manager interviewed with high level questions - likes,contributions etc. Stereotypical & laid back to the point I saw no value in either as they asked nothing of depth or relevance much less technical. Soft skills touched on were vague. I'd like to point out this is a *development* role. The process was akin to what you'd expect interviewing for a call center. That's fine - If the position consisted of client interactions and interfacing with a high enough consistency that warranted it being a factoring decision . As a developer your role consists of answering / resolving technical hurdles with minimal interaction. You're not sitting on calls etc minus scrums You tend to be invisible and keep the trains running. Someone asking "can you do X / Y" at which point you offer guidance and implement tends to be the upper echelon of this. In web dev you work with designers and have back and forth. Likewise marketers questions regarding web issues. Again minimal. I currently run my own business doing nothing but HubSpot work and literally work with marketers and clients on a daily basis. Doing calls, sourcing clients, managing projects, and the dev of course. I have markedly more experience than most devs soft skills. Regardless, subjective, here's what rubbed me wrong way: I can't stand the dilution of tech fields / roles by way of the peter principle and having non tech people - who have zero experience whatsoever - interviewing people for tech roles where decisions are made with non technical basis. It fundamentally leads to poor products and organizational incompetence. HubSpot is a shining example of this. There were NO technical questions asked. Not a SINGLE thing was asked about my resume, any depth about experiences, or anything that remotely tested technical acumen - the thing the entire role is based around. I found this appalling. Cherry: As a proactive approach to show my interest I provided a *forty* page audit - for free - taking time out of my day and lunch. Really had nothing better to do. Within which I highlighted numerous issues ranging from performance to accessibility platform level problems and personal musings about things I like / dont. I even commended things. This would've been a gold mine for an interviewer to dive into and ask about. My perspectives, competency, etc regarding ability to perform tasks. It was stated it would be forwarded and could be used. Wasn't mentioned at all or received. I received an email on Monday stating that the interview would move forward with others. Per follow up I asked what the underlying reason was. This was a simple web dev role in a sandboxed environment. For anyone techie you know how easy this is. Given background, certs, experience in the sector etc I was blindsided. The response given was that the decision was based upon vague "behavioral factors" and that it wasn't tech exp. I could be "overqualified if that's a thing" per recruiter. This is whats wrong with tech. It's having HR-esque / marketing people interview devs and make decisions based upon who smiled the best. Theyve no business doing so. It's a laughable practice. It's why devs get burned out, move fields, or stop caring about developing ethical code. They get tired of pandering. It's insulting. I found the behavioral comment egregious and off base particularly as the manager abruptly hung up as I attempted to be polite and thank her for her time at the end. Not to mention efforts and follow ups. It's not something I respect and I think the proliferation of this results in countless bad design decisions - harming users - and easily preventable tech debt because more often than not incompetent people get hired on these bases rather than their skills. Marketing is rife with this. It bubbles down / up and causes issues. It's a lack of decorum and the entire premise of the peter principle. it is in full effect here. I'm not upset I didn't get the role, there are better options, it peeves me that this is a growing trend and competency / decorum much less ethics have fallen to the wayside due to the proliferation of marketing and lack of deferrence to people that actually have expertise. That non tech people / recruiters in general are even interviewing to begin with and they absolutely should not be. the blunt fact is they have no basis from which to form an opinion per lack of skills other than aforementioned criterion of little relevance. To be clear the "behavioral" premise here was egregious in particular because my analysis and interview was chock full of prefaces and careful wording. If tech roles are now being filled based upon the ability of one to play the HR game instead of tech skills... Big yikes.