In the competitive world of tech hiring, conventional wisdom holds that snagging the top-tier engineers—those mythical coders who can architect systems in their sleep—is the key to building a powerhouse team. But a provocative post from Otherbranch challenges this notion head-on, arguing that pursuing “the best” engineers might actually sabotage your company’s success. Drawing from years of recruiting experience, the piece posits that these elite talents often come with baggage that outweighs their brilliance, including outsized egos, poor collaboration skills, and a tendency to chase shiny new problems rather than grinding through the mundane tasks that keep businesses running.

The blog, penned by an insider at Otherbranch, likens hiring the so-called best to assembling a team of all-star athletes who refuse to pass the ball. It cites real-world examples where companies, dazzled by resumes from FAANG alumni or coding competition winners, end up with disrupted teams and stalled projects. Instead, the advice leans toward engineers who are solid performers—reliable, adaptable, and focused on collective goals over individual glory.

The Hidden Costs of Elite Talent

This perspective isn’t isolated. A related discussion in The Pragmatic Engineer explores how Big Tech manages projects without rigid methodologies like Scrum, implying that success often hinges on team dynamics rather than individual prowess. When “the best” engineers join smaller firms, they may import expectations of autonomy that clash with startup realities, leading to friction. Otherbranch’s post warns that these stars can dominate discussions, sidelining junior talent and fostering a toxic environment where innovation stalls amid personality clashes.

Moreover, the financial toll is steep. Elite engineers command salaries that can inflate payrolls without proportional returns, especially if they’re more interested in refactoring code for perfection than shipping features on time. The blog recounts anecdotes of companies burning through cash to retain such talent, only to see diminished productivity as the rest of the team struggles to keep up.

Rethinking Hiring Priorities

Echoing this, a piece from Stepsize argues that simply adding more engineers—let alone the “best” ones—doesn’t accelerate development; it can even slow it down due to coordination overhead. Otherbranch emphasizes hiring for cultural fit and long-term potential, suggesting that mid-tier engineers who grow with the company often deliver more value. This aligns with insights from Hacker News threads, where engineers share stories of thriving in large codebases by prioritizing consistency and collaboration over revolutionary overhauls.

The post also critiques the myth perpetuated by platforms like LinkedIn, where buzzwords like “rockstar developer” inflate expectations. Instead, it advocates for centralized interviewing processes, as detailed in Otherbranch’s own introductory blog, to filter for balanced candidates who excel in real-world scenarios.

Building Sustainable Teams

Ultimately, the argument boils down to sustainability. Chasing the best can lead to high turnover, as these engineers often jump ship for the next big challenge, leaving knowledge gaps. In contrast, investing in “good enough” talent fosters loyalty and steady progress. A Charity Majors blog on engineering management reinforces this by questioning the need for hierarchical structures, suggesting flat teams of collaborative engineers outperform those led by prima donnas.

For industry insiders, this reframing is a call to action: prioritize team cohesion over individual stardom. As tech markets tighten—with software engineering jobs at a five-year low, per The Pragmatic Engineer—companies that heed this advice may find themselves better positioned to build resilient, productive engineering organizations that endure beyond the hype.