Latest / The Tech Career Podcast with Fexingo: Engineering Jobs, Interviews, and FAANG Career Strategy / How FAANG Engineers Handle Imposter Syndrome
Transcript
- Lucas: There is a statistic from a Blind survey last year that I keep coming back to. Sixty-seven percent of FAANG engineers said they feel like a fraud at least once a month. Luna: That's more than two out of three. And these are people who passed the hardest interviews in tech. Lucas: Right. So the obvious question is — if you are objectively good enough to get hired at Google or Meta, why does that feeling persist? And what do engineers actually do about it on the job, not just in a LinkedIn post? Luna: I think a lot of the advice out there is too generic. 'Just believe in yourself.' That's not actionable. Lucas: Exactly. So today I want to look at two specific practices that I've seen inside FAANG teams. One comes from Google, one from Meta. And they are surprisingly concrete. Luna: Let's start with Google. What do they do? Lucas: Some teams there practice something informally called 'competence journaling.' It's not an official HR program — it's a habit a few senior engineers told me about. The idea is that every Friday, you spend ten minutes writing down three things you did that week that moved a project forward. Luna: That sounds almost too simple. But I can see how it would help if you're prone to forgetting your own wins. Lucas: That's exactly the point. One engineer I spoke to — he was at Apple for six years before moving to Google — he kept a running document where he tracked every code review he submitted that got approved without major revisions. After eighteen months, he had over two hundred entries. He told me that when he felt like he didn't belong, he'd scroll through that document and it was hard to argue with the data. Luna: So it's evidence-based confidence. That's powerful. What about Meta? Lucas: Meta has a more team-oriented practice. Some teams do what they call 'Acknowledgment Fridays.' At the end of the week, during stand-up, each person takes thirty seconds to call out a colleague who helped them. It could be a code review, unblocking a bug, or even just asking a smart question in a meeting. Luna: I love that. It's not just about your own accomplishments — it's about seeing that other people are struggling too, and that you're contributing. Lucas: Exactly. The social proof works both ways. You hear someone say, 'Hey, Sarah's feedback on my PR saved us two days of debugging,' and you realize, oh, Sarah is valued. But also, the next time you feel like a fraud, you remember that someone acknowledged you last Friday. Luna: I wonder how many teams actually do this consistently. My guess is it's a minority, but the fact that it exists is telling. Lucas: Yeah, it's definitely not universal. But the reason I find these examples useful is that they're structural. They don't rely on you just 'feeling better.' They create a system that generates evidence over time. Luna: That's the key difference. Imposter syndrome is a feeling. You can't argue with a feeling using logic. But you can argue with a log of two hundred approved code reviews. Lucas: Right. And this gets to something I think is underappreciated. A lot of the conversation around imposter syndrome frames it as a personal failing — like you just need more self-esteem. But I'd argue that for many engineers, it's actually a data problem. Luna: Explain that. Lucas: In a typical FAANG environment, you get feedback maybe twice a year during performance reviews. That's a very sparse signal. In the meantime, your brain fills the gaps with negative stories. 'I got stuck on that bug for three hours, so I'm not good enough.' But if you had a weekly log, you'd see that you also shipped three features and helped two teammates. The data balances the narrative. Luna: So the problem isn't the feeling — it's the lack of counter-evidence. That makes sense. Lucas: Yeah. And I think this is where a lot of well-meaning advice falls short. Telling someone to 'just be confident' doesn't give them a mechanism. But telling them to keep a ten-minute weekly log? That's a mechanism. Luna: Okay, but I want to push back a little. Isn't there a risk that this becomes a crutch? Like you're just curating a highlight reel for yourself, and you never actually address the real skill gaps? Lucas: That's a fair concern. And I think the honest answer is that imposter syndrome sometimes masks actual gaps. There's a difference between feeling like a fraud and being underqualified. The competence journal can help you distinguish between the two. Luna: How so? Lucas: If after three months of journaling, you see that you're not shipping much, and your code reviews are getting rejected often, that's not imposter syndrome. That's a signal that you need to upskill or ask for mentorship. The journal doesn't just show you your wins — it shows you the pattern. Luna: That's actually a much healthier framing. It turns the practice into a diagnostic tool, not just a self-esteem booster. Lucas: Exactly. And I want to give listeners something they can start using today. There's a framework from Stanford psychologist Dr. Valerie Young, who has studied imposter syndrome for decades. She recommends a simple exercise called the 'evidence log.' Luna: Walk us through it. Lucas: Once a week, you write down one piece of objective evidence that you are competent at your job. It has to be specific and verifiable. Not 'I felt good about the meeting,' but 'I identified a bug in production that saved the team four hours of downtime.' Luna: And you only write one per week? Lucas: At minimum. You can do more, but one is enough to build the habit. After a year, you have fifty-two pieces of evidence. That's a lot harder to dismiss than a vague feeling. Luna: I like that it's low friction. One entry a week. That's sustainable. Lucas: Yeah. And you can pair it with a team practice like Acknowledgment Fridays. If your team doesn't do it, you can start it informally. Just say, 'Hey, let's take two minutes at the end of stand-up to call out someone who helped us this week.' Most managers will say yes. Luna: And if they say no? Lucas: Then you do it yourself in a private doc. The point is not the ritual — it's the evidence. Luna: Speaking of evidence, I'm curious if you've personally used any of these methods. Lucas: I have. When I was a junior engineer at a mid-size company, I kept a weekly log for about a year. It helped me realize that I was actually getting better faster than I thought. I still have that document somewhere. Luna: That's honest. And I think it's important for listeners to hear that even people who talk about this stuff still struggle with it. It's not something you cure — it's something you manage. Lucas: Exactly. And if this conversation gave you something useful, I want to mention something briefly. This podcast is completely ad-free, and that's only possible because of listener support. If you find value in episodes like this, you can help keep it going at buymeacoffee.com/fexingo. Luna: Yeah, it's a simple way to support the show without any commitment. And we really appreciate it. Lucas: So back to the evidence log. One last thing I want to emphasize: the log isn't about toxic positivity. It's about having a factual record of your contributions. When you feel that fraud feeling creeping in, you have something real to push back against. Luna: And if you find that you don't have enough entries, that's useful information too. It might mean you need to take on more visible work or ask for more feedback. Lucas: Right. The goal is clarity, not comfort. And I think that's a much more honest approach to dealing with imposter syndrome in a high-stakes engineering culture. Luna: So to sum up: start a weekly evidence log, and if you can, nudge your team toward a quick acknowledgment ritual. It's not a magic cure, but it's a start. Lucas: Exactly. And if you try it for a month, I'd be curious to hear how it goes. We'll put a link to the evidence log template in the show notes. That's all for today. Thanks for listening.