The interviewer should be less competent. That's the goal. The only alternative is that everyone trends dumber as the org grows. Usually you're trying to hire an expert in something. It can't be a necessity that the interviewer is an expert in all things they need to hire for, or even most competent in their field! You want your org to increase competence.

And, I think that's what causes the slow demise of corporations: the "hire dumb" is much easier. It's hard to get a read on intelligence/competence/skill if you're less of any of those, so, on average, orgs do get dumber. What's the best shield against stupidity? Bureaucracy! :D

So nobody can ever hire someone better at particular skills than they are? Oh boy.

Run or email their seniors and ask them if they're hiring for higher-up positions.

But this is connected to another thread on HN about engineer/manager titles and how they basically have no value if you try to compare them between employers.

Or maybe this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47247719