THE EAGER REJECTION

A job interview ended with a rejection, and a message telling the applicant they came off as "overly eager to please."

The poster had applied for a role found on Jobcat, gone through the interview, and then waited for the verdict. When it arrived, the answer was no. But the real sting was in the feedback.

According to the rejection note, HR said the company did not build teams around "people-pleasing tendencies or rehearsed enthusiasm." The applicant was told to "reflect on how I present myself" and take note that "confidence is more compelling than excessive accommodation." In other words: less trying too hard, more self-assurance.

The wording went even further. The poster said they were basically told the company doesn't accept "try-hards and people pleasers," and that "not being a culture fit is a thing." That line, in particular, seemed to frame the rejection as more than just a mismatch on skills or experience.

The applicant didn't just shrug it off. They called the feedback "unnecessarily personal and condescending" and asked whether this was actually normal or appropriate for a rejection email. The issue wasn't only that they didn't get the job, it was how the company chose to explain why.

The exchange left the poster questioning where the line is between honest hiring feedback and unnecessary criticism of someone's personality. The rejection didn't focus on qualifications or interview answers. Instead, it zoomed in on tone, enthusiasm, and the way the applicant carried themselves.

What started as a standard job application on Jobcat turned into a blunt HR critique that landed somewhere between advice and insult.