How to Spot a Great Engineer in 15 Minutes — Even Without Technical Expertise

You're sitting across from a software engineer candidate. They start talking about "microservices architecture" and "asynchronous processing," and you're nodding along while internally panicking. Sound familiar?

Here's the truth: You don't need to understand the difference between Python and Java to identify exceptional engineering talent. Great engineers reveal themselves through how they think, communicate, and approach problems, not just through technical jargon. Here's how to spot them in a quick 15-minute conversation.

1. Ask Them to Explain Their Most Complex Project (Like You're a 10-Year-Old)

This is your golden question. Within the first few minutes, ask: "Can you walk me through the most complex technical project you've worked on, but explain it in a way that anyone could understand?"

What you're listening for:

• Do they translate technical concepts into plain language naturally?
• Can they explain the business problem they were solving, not just the technical solution?
• Do they use analogies or real-world examples to make their point?
• Are they patient and clear, or do they get frustrated simplifying things?

Red flags:

• They can't explain their work without technical jargon
• They seem annoyed or condescending about simplifying
• They focus only on technologies used, not problems solved
• Their explanation leaves you more confused than before

Why it works: Great engineers understand their work deeply enough to explain it simply. If they can't make their project understandable to a non-technical person, they probably don't understand it well enough themselves, or worse, they lack the communication skills essential for collaborative teams.

Follow-up question: "What was the biggest challenge you faced, and how did you overcome it?" Listen for problem-solving approach, not technical details.

2. Watch How They Handle Your "Dumb" Questions

Deliberately ask a basic or slightly naive question about their work. Something like: "Why didn't you just use a spreadsheet for that?" or "Couldn't you have built that in a day?"

What you're observing:

• Do they respect your question and answer thoughtfully?
• Can they explain constraints and trade-offs without being condescending?
• Do they acknowledge valid points in your "naive" question?
• Is their tone collaborative or dismissive?

Green flags:

• "That's actually a great question! Here's why that wouldn't work at scale..."
• They validate your thinking before explaining limitations
• They use your question as a teaching moment
• They admit when simpler solutions could work

Red flags:

• Eye rolls, sighs, or visible frustration
• "Well, obviously that wouldn't work because..."
• Making you feel stupid for asking
• Unable to explain why a simple solution wouldn't suffice

Why it works: You're not testing their technical knowledge; you're testing their empathy, patience, and ability to work with non-technical stakeholders. Engineers who respect "basic" questions make better team members, write better documentation, and build more user-friendly products.

This is exactly the kind of quality that often gets missed in traditional technical interviews but makes all the difference in day-to-day collaboration. If evaluating these soft skills alongside technical competence feels overwhelming, platforms like RemoteEngine assess candidates on both dimensions, ensuring you get engineers who can actually work well with your team.

3. Ask About a Time They Were Wrong

Frame it like this: "Tell me about a technical decision you made that you'd do differently now" or "Describe a time your solution didn't work as planned."

What you're listening for:

• Do they have a ready example, or do they struggle to think of one?
• Do they take ownership, or blame others (teammates, managers, unclear requirements)?
• What did they learn from the experience?
• How did they handle the situation when things went wrong?

Great answers sound like:

• "I chose Technology X because it was trendy, but it actually added complexity we didn't need..."
• "I didn't consider how the team would maintain my code after I moved to another project..."
• "I optimized for speed but didn't think about security implications until..."
• "I should have asked more questions upfront instead of making assumptions..."

Red flags:

• "I can't think of any major mistakes"
• Blaming external factors exclusively
• No clear learning or growth from the experience
• Defensive or uncomfortable with the question

Why it works: Engineering is about learning and iteration. Developers who can't acknowledge mistakes either lack self-awareness or haven't worked on challenging projects. Great engineers know that failure is part of innovation and growth.

4. Listen for "We" vs. "I"

Throughout the conversation, pay attention to their language. Do they say "I built" or "We built"? Do they acknowledge teammates, designers, or product managers?

What you're tracking:

• How often do they credit others vs. taking sole credit?
• Do they mention collaboration naturally?
• Can they articulate how they worked with non-engineers?
• Do they recognize contributions from different roles?

Green flags:

• "I worked with the design team to..."
• "My teammate suggested we try..."
• "The product manager helped us prioritize..."
• "We decided as a team that..."

Red flags:

• Everything is "I did this, I built that, I solved..."
• No mention of teammates or collaboration
• Taking credit for team achievements
• Unable to describe working with others

Why it works: Software development is team sport. Lone wolves might be technically brilliant but they create bottlenecks, knowledge silos, and cultural problems. Engineers who naturally credit others tend to be better collaborators, mentors, and long-term team members.

Bonus observation: Do they light up when talking about helping junior developers or teaching others? That's a premium quality.

5. Ask "Why" Three Times (The Five-Year-Old Test)

When they explain a technical decision, gently push deeper with "why" questions. Not to challenge them, but to understand their reasoning.

Example flow:

• Them: "We migrated to a cloud infrastructure."
• You: "Why did you choose to do that?"
• Them: "Our on-premise servers couldn't scale."
• You: "Why was scaling important at that time?"
• Them: "We were growing 40% month-over-month and experiencing outages during peak times, which was costing us customers."

What you're evaluating:

• Can they connect technical decisions to business outcomes?
• Do they understand the "why" behind their work, or just the "what"?
• Are their decisions driven by real problems or just following trends?
• How deep is their understanding of the problem they were solving?

Great engineers will:

• Connect technology choices to user impact or business metrics
• Explain trade-offs they considered
• Show they understood the broader context
• Demonstrate strategic thinking, not just execution

Red flags:

• Answers get vague after the first "why"
• "Because that's what everyone uses"
• "My tech lead told me to"
• Can't articulate the business reason for technical decisions

Why it works: Engineers who understand "why" make better decisions, push back on bad ideas productively, and can be trusted with ownership. Those who only know "what" need constant direction and won't grow into leadership roles.

6. Present a Hypothetical Problem (Non-Technical)

Give them a simple, everyday problem to solve. Something like:

"Imagine you need to organize a team lunch for 50 people with different dietary restrictions, a tight budget, and only 3 days' notice. How would you approach this?"

What you're observing:

• Do they break the problem down into steps?
• Do they ask clarifying questions before jumping to solutions?
• How do they prioritize competing constraints?
• Is their approach systematic or chaotic?

Strong problem-solving looks like:

• Asking questions: "What's the budget?" "How many vegetarians?" "Any allergies I need to know about?"
• Breaking it down: "First, I'd survey the team. Then, I'd research options. Then, I'd..."
• Considering trade-offs: "We could do catering, which is easy but expensive, or potluck, which is cheaper but less reliable..."
• Thinking about edge cases: "What if someone doesn't respond to the survey?"

Why it works: Problem-solving ability transfers across domains. An engineer who approaches a lunch problem methodically will likely approach a coding problem the same way. You're testing their fundamental thinking process, not their technical knowledge.

Bringing It All Together

Great engineers aren't defined by the programming languages they know or the frameworks they've mastered. They're defined by:

• Communication skills that make complex ideas accessible
• Humility to admit mistakes and learn from them
• Collaboration that values team success over individual glory
• Strategic thinking that connects code to business outcomes
• Problem-solving approach that's methodical and thoughtful

In 15 minutes, you can assess all of these qualities without writing a single line of code or understanding what "Kubernetes" means.

The best part? These qualities are often better predictors of long-term success than pure technical skills. Technical skills can be learned; critical thinking, communication, and collaboration are harder to teach.

Of course, if you'd rather work with engineers who've already been evaluated on these exact criteria, RemoteEngine specializes in connecting companies with vetted problem-solvers who excel in both technical execution and team collaboration. Sometimes the best use of your 15 minutes is onboarding great talent instead of screening dozens of candidates.

Now go into that next interview with confidence. You've got this.