Technical skills get people hired, but team chemistry determines success
I once watched a team of five brilliant developers spend three months building a feature that should have taken three weeks. Each person was exceptional individually – senior engineers with impressive resumes and deep technical knowledge. But together, they were a disaster. They couldn't agree on architecture, they duplicated each other's work, and they spent more time in heated discussions about code style than actually writing code. The feature shipped eventually, but by then, half the team was looking for other jobs.
This experience taught me that hiring the best individual contributors doesn't automatically create the best teams. In fact, sometimes it creates the worst teams. The most productive development teams I've worked with share characteristics that have nothing to do with technical prowess and everything to do with how people think, communicate, and make decisions together.
Great teams have what I call "complementary thinking styles." This doesn't mean everyone thinks the same way – quite the opposite. The best teams include people who naturally think in systems, people who obsess over details, people who see edge cases, and people who focus on user experience. They have optimists who push for ambitious features and skeptics who ask hard questions about feasibility. When you hire five people who all think exactly alike, you get groupthink and blind spots.
They also share a common relationship with ego. Notice I didn't say they have no ego – ego drives the ambition and confidence necessary for great work. But the best team members are curious about being wrong rather than defensive about being right. They genuinely want to understand different perspectives, even when those perspectives challenge their own ideas. They see code reviews as opportunities to learn rather than personal attacks on their competence.
Communication patterns matter enormously. High-performing teams tend to have members who ask clarifying questions instead of making assumptions, who say "I don't understand" instead of pretending they do, and who explain their thinking process rather than just their conclusions. They're comfortable with productive conflict about technical decisions but don't let disagreements become personal. They know the difference between being direct and being harsh.
Energy levels and work rhythms need to align too. I've seen teams fail because they had one person who preferred to think through problems thoroughly before discussing them and three people who liked to brainstorm out loud. Neither approach is wrong, but when they clash constantly, both sides become frustrated. The most successful teams find natural rhythms that work for everyone, or they're explicit about accommodating different working styles.
During interviews, I look for people who talk about past projects in terms of "we" rather than "I," but who can also clearly articulate their specific contributions. I listen for candidates who mention learning from teammates, who describe helping others, or who talk about how they adapted their approach based on team feedback. These are signals that someone understands collaboration as a skill, not just something that happens when you put people in the same room.
I also pay attention to how candidates respond to technical disagreements during the interview process. Do they dig into their position defensively, or do they genuinely engage with alternative approaches? When they disagree with something, do they attack the idea or attack the person? Can they explain why they prefer one solution over another without dismissing other options entirely?
Cultural fit interviews should focus less on personality and more on work style compatibility. Ask about their preferred feedback style, their approach to handling ambiguous requirements, and how they like to resolve technical disagreements. Find out what energizes them about working with others and what drains them. These conversations reveal far more about team potential than asking about their favorite programming language or their biggest weakness.
The best teams also have what psychologists call "psychological safety" – the confidence that you can express ideas, admit mistakes, and ask questions without fear of judgment or retribution. This isn't something you can hire for directly, but you can identify candidates who contribute to it. Look for people who ask thoughtful questions during interviews, who admit when they don't know something, and who seem genuinely interested in learning about your team's challenges.
Building great teams is about finding people who make each other better. The strongest technical contributor isn't necessarily the best hire if they make everyone else worse. The candidate with slightly less experience might be the perfect addition if they bring curiosity, collaboration skills, and a complementary perspective that fills gaps in your team's thinking.
Remember, you're not just hiring individuals – you're evolving a system. Every new person changes the team dynamic, and the goal is to make those changes positive. Sometimes that means hiring someone who challenges the status quo. Sometimes it means hiring someone who brings stability. Always, it means thinking about how this person will contribute to the collective intelligence and effectiveness of the group, not just their individual output.
© 2025 Mosaic Solutions HR. All rights reserved. | IT Recruiting & HR Services in Reno, Nevada | Professional Technical Recruitment