How to Choose a Great Tech Hire

I’ve seen too many hiring processes that focus on the wrong things. Teams spend hours on algorithm puzzles and whiteboard exercises, then hire someone who can’t write readable code or collaborate effectively with colleagues. Six months later, they’re dealing with either a performance issue or an unexpected resignation from someone who never felt like they fit the team.

These candidates don’t lack technical ability. The problem is that traditional hiring processes don’t predict who will actually succeed and stay on your team. After years of hiring engineers and watching some thrive while others struggle, I’ve learned that the best predictors of long-term success are often the things most interviews completely miss.

Here’s what I actually look for when hiring engineers, and why these signals matter more than most technical assessments.

Look for Builders, Not Just Coders

The question that matters most isn’t “Can they solve algorithm problems?” It’s “Can they build things that solve problems?” There’s a fundamental difference between someone who can write code and someone who can deliver working software that serves a purpose.

When I review candidates, I’m looking for evidence that they’ve built complete projects from start to finish. Not just coding exercises or tutorial follow-alongs, but actual working software that solves real problems. This could be command-line utilities, web applications, automation tools, or contributions to open source projects—the complexity matters less than the completeness.

What I’m really evaluating is their ability to navigate the full software development lifecycle. Can they scope a problem, make technical decisions, handle edge cases, write documentation, and ship something that actually works? These are the skills that translate directly to success on your team, regardless of whether they learned them in a computer science program or taught themselves on weekends.

The best candidates can walk you through their projects and explain not just how they built something, but why they made specific technical choices. They understand the trade-offs they made and can articulate what they learned from the experience. This kind of thinking is what distinguishes engineers who will contribute meaningfully to your team from those who will struggle to move beyond assigned tasks.

Evaluate Systems Thinking Over Syntax Knowledge

Most technical interviews focus on whether someone knows specific syntax or can solve isolated problems. But the engineers who succeed on teams are the ones who understand how their code fits into larger systems and affects other people’s work.

I look for candidates who demonstrate awareness of follow-on effects. When they describe a project, do they consider performance implications? Do they think about maintainability? Can they explain how their technical decisions might impact other developers or users?

Understanding concepts like mutability, thread safety, and code reusability shows technical competence as well as thinking systematically about software as something that exists in a larger context. Engineers who grasp these concepts naturally write code that’s easier to debug, extend, and maintain. They consider the total cost of ownership, not just the immediate implementation.

During interviews, I ask candidates to explain technical trade-offs they’ve made in their projects. The specific technologies matter less than their ability to reason about complexity, performance, and maintainability. Engineers who think this way will continue learning and adapting as your company’s tech stack evolves.

Assess Communication Skills Through Real Examples

Communication skills aren’t just a “nice to have” for engineers—they’re essential for team effectiveness. But most hiring processes assess communication through artificial interview scenarios rather than looking at how candidates actually communicate about technical topics.

I spend significant time reviewing candidates’ written communication. How do they explain their projects in README files? How do they participate in open source discussions? Can they write clear, helpful documentation? These examples reveal how they’ll communicate with your team when explaining technical decisions, documenting systems, or participating in code reviews.

Pay attention to how candidates describe complex technical concepts during interviews. Can they adjust their explanation based on their audience’s technical background? Do they provide context and examples? Can they acknowledge when they don’t know something without becoming defensive?

The engineers who succeed long-term are those who can collaborate effectively across different skill levels and backgrounds. They can explain technical concepts to non-technical stakeholders, provide helpful code review feedback, and contribute to architectural discussions. These collaborative skills are often better predictors of success than pure technical ability.

Identify Team Players Through Contribution Patterns

The best predictor of how someone will behave on your team is how they’ve behaved on other teams. Rather than asking hypothetical questions about teamwork, look at concrete examples of how candidates have collaborated with others.

Open source contributions provide excellent insight into someone’s collaborative style. How do they handle feedback on their code? Do they contribute thoughtfully to discussions? Can they work within existing conventions and standards? Do they help other contributors or just focus on their own work?

For candidates without extensive open source history, look at how they talk about past team experiences. Do they credit others for successes? Can they describe situations where they helped colleagues or learned from feedback? How do they handle disagreement or conflict?

I’m particularly interested in candidates who show evidence of helping others grow. Engineers who mentor junior developers, contribute to team documentation, or improve development processes tend to have a positive impact that extends far beyond their individual contributions.

Evaluate Learning Ability Over Current Knowledge

Technology changes rapidly, which means the specific skills someone has today matter less than their ability to acquire new skills as needed. The engineers who thrive long-term are those who stay curious and adapt effectively to new challenges.

During interviews, I ask candidates about times they had to learn something completely new for a project. How did they approach unfamiliar technologies? What resources did they use? How did they validate their understanding? The process they describe reveals more about their potential than any specific technology they currently know.

I also look for evidence of intellectual humility. Can candidates acknowledge the limits of their knowledge? Do they ask thoughtful questions? Are they excited about learning from more experienced team members? Engineers who combine confidence in their abilities with openness to learning tend to grow quickly and integrate well with existing teams.

What This Means for Your Hiring Process

Identifying these qualities requires a different approach than traditional technical interviews. Instead of algorithm problems, focus on discussing real projects and technical decisions. Instead of whiteboard coding, review actual code they’ve written and ask them to explain their thinking.

Spend time on behavioral questions that reveal collaborative patterns and learning ability. Make time for informal conversation about what kind of work environment they thrive in and what they’re excited to learn next.

Most importantly, involve your team in the hiring process. The people who will work directly with your new hire are often better at assessing team fit than individual interviewers making isolated decisions.

Remember that hiring is ultimately about predicting future success, not just evaluating current abilities. The candidates who can build complete projects, think systematically about technical decisions, communicate effectively, and continue learning will contribute more to your team’s long-term success than those who simply perform well on coding tests.

Your perfect candidate isn’t necessarily the most technically skilled or the most knowledgeable about your domain. It’s the person who will grow with your team and contribute to the kind of collaborative, effective engineering culture that retains great people and delivers great software.