*Written by Marc Boudria / Edited by Marina Fontoura
Last week, we debunked “checkbox hiring”—the idea that a résumé alone delivers great engineers. This week, we push further: impactful teams aren’t built on generic checklists, but on clear indicators of real-world excellence. If you want to hire engineers who ship and scale, you need to look for evidence, not empty slogans.
A résumé packed with “Kubernetes” and “Gen‑AI” reveals far less than a hobby project that shipped, a side‑hustle SaaS with paying users, or an internal tool teammates still rave about. Decades of industrial‑organizational research agree: structured behavioral evidence and work‑sample tests are the most reliable predictors of future performance, reaching validities above .60—far outperforming keyword screens or degree filters. (Source: ResearchGate)
Rather than simply relying on a list of keywords, it’s far more telling to explore specific situations where candidates have demonstrated initiative, problem-solving, and real impact.
Reviewing side projects uncovers much more than technical skills—it reveals passion, ownership, and depth. Over two decades of leading R&D teams, I’ve seen output surge when engineers work on problems they love. Gallup’s global engagement data back this up: highly engaged people deliver 21 % higher profitability and 17 % higher productivity than disengaged peers.
Passion fuels clearer dialogue: curious engineers explain concepts crisply, ask smart questions, and volunteer improvements that reshape the roadmap.
When leadership says, “We need this yesterday,” it’s tempting to panic or flood the funnel with dozens of unvetted CVs. But the cost of a bad hire is severe: SHRM estimates it can reach up to 30% of a first-year salary after factoring in replacement, onboarding, and lost productivity. According to CareerBuilder, the hidden soft costs can top $17,000 per bad hire.
Rushing to fill seats almost guarantees compromise, leading to turnover and team disruption. If you need 10 engineers, reviewing 50 shallow profiles rarely delivers 10 great hires. Instead, demand focus and rigor from your hiring process and partners.
Work only with partners who deliver a tightly vetted shortlist—if you need 10 engineers, review 12–15 candidates who have already proven their skills, cultural alignment, and passion.
Quality always outweighs speed, because “needed yesterday” talent that fails tomorrow still amounts to a loss.
Traditional whiteboard challenges and time-pressured algorithm puzzles might gauge nerves, but they rarely reveal true engineering ability. Instead, real-world work samples—designed as short, meaningful projects—give you a window into how candidates think, collaborate, and build.
Research continues to show that practical assessments, paired with structured conversations, are among the strongest predictors of on-the-job success. When candidates work through a genuine ticket from your backlog or a relevant mock scenario, you see more than just technical chops—you witness their collaboration style, code hygiene, and product intuition in action.
Ditch high-pressure games in favor of authentic, purposeful work samples and collaborative dialogue to surface the engineers who’ll truly elevate your team.
Zooming out, here’s how our hiring framework stacks up:
The best future performance predictor is how candidates think, communicate, and solve problems today, not a list of buzzwords. That’s only revealed when you invest in real conversations and structured evidence.
In Part 3, we’ll explore how to build remote teams that actually work—without sacrificing culture, communication, or alignment.
Coming up in part 2:
At BetterEngineer, we help you hire for what actually matters—ownership, curiosity, and communication—not just a list of tech buzzwords. Our teams deliver more than talent—they deliver results.
This article was written by Marc Boudria, Chief Innovation Officer at BetterEngineer.
📅 Want to go deeper or discuss how this applies to your team?
Book a meeting with Marc to explore how we can help you build a world-class engineering team.