Myths and realities behind creating a good corporate culture for your software development team

Myths and realities behind creating a good corporate culture for your software development team

Mythbusting

Curated by: Sergio A. Martínez

There is a lot of discussion about what makes for a good corporate culture for an organization in the software industry, and while there’s no objective answer to this idea, it’s clear that without a solid culture, a company can’t hope to thrive and truly nurture its employees. And we often forget that this culture doesn’t have to be something complex or expensive – what matters is that everyone understands their roles and pushes each other to do their best work.

Myths and realities behind creating a good corporate culture for your software development team

What does a good cultural approach look like? Simple things like making sure there are clear paths for communication within the team and offering opportunities for people to get more involved with projects if they feel passionate about them is a good start, for example. Having a strong corporate culture doesn’t have to mean investing in large-scale activities – it takes small steps every day towards building relationships between teammates and creating an environment where everyone can contribute and do their best work.

However, it’s easy to lose sight of what makes a culture truly effective. Many software development organizations believe that a good environment consists entirely of free snacks and coffee, unlimited vacation policies, quirky office decorations, and the like. These perks are nice to have, sure, but they alone will not create a culture; it’s more important to have the right people with the right values in charge, who prioritize collaboration and transparency so teams work together effectively and everyone has access to information they need to make decisions. 

After all, the endgame of a comfortable work environment is fostering productivity – providing the correct workspaces (both in the office and remotely), and open communication goes a long way towards creating a pleasant place to write code and solve programming challenges. Ultimately, a good corporate culture that supports software development involves understanding what motivates your team members and showing them their work is respected and valued. This is one of the main reasons why we strive to foster the best culture possible at Scio. So, with that in mind, we want to discuss some of the common myths of building a great culture, what a good approach might look like, and whether or not developing this kind of environment inside a company improves your possibilities of success. 

Myth #1: Establishing a set of values is enough.

Myths and realities behind creating a good corporate culture for your software development team

Today it is pretty much expected for any serious company to be guided by a core set of values that, in theory, represent what the organization is all about. And while having these values is an important step towards building a strong and healthy working culture within a software development company, that, by itself, is not enough. There has to be buy-in among the employees, with these values understood and incorporated into their everyday work. 

That’s why it’s so important to build clear communication around them, make sure everyone involved shares the same sensibilities, and regularly celebrate the successes that reflect these values. It’s also vitally important to regularly discuss how they’re being put into action and identify where they may be slipping to rectify any issues quickly. If this isn’t done in earnest then having core values won’t do much for your culture at all; they will become just words on paper that will neither help nor encourage anything among the employees. You have to dedicate time, effort, and energy regularly if you want the benefits of a good culture that those values should bring.

Myth #2: It’s all about the perks

Having cool perks may seem like a great way to attract employees and keep them motivated and engaged, but it shouldn’t be confused with having a good corporate culture. Things like free meals and gym memberships are nice, but ultimately those things don’t do much to improve the environment of your business. To create a strong corporate culture, you have to go beyond material incentives. You need to emphasize collaboration and respect among colleagues; focus on fostering an open exchange of ideas; prioritize employee wellness both physical and mental; create clear standards for accountability; and recognize individual successes. In other words, a truly nurturing workplace is made up of meaningful conversations, opportunities to learn, and a sense of belonging for all staff regardless of their backgrounds.  

So, while perks can be part of creating a positive office atmosphere, they shouldn’t be used as a stand-in for a real corporate culture implementation. Good corporate cultures foster creativity and morale, giving employees a platform to express their ideas without feeling like they won’t be listened to or judged unfairly. Companies should remember that the spark of meaningful relationships among staff is much more valuable than offering one-stop solutions like free snacks or ping pong tables.

Myth #3: Culture Is Just Another Management Fad

The talk of good corporate cultures has picked up in the last decade, so it’s easy to brush it aside as the current fad among the Tech sectors. But in reality, it’s a precious resource that helps organizations succeed. Things like team bonding, creating an open and supportive atmosphere and having leaders who listen to feedback are all factors that help convince people to stay on board, work better together, and generate more robust results.

So, with the increased focus on healthy team dynamics over the past few years, many organizations have seen firsthand the rewards of an invested and cohesive corporate culture. Scio, for example, knows that a good culture makes teams more productive, and happier at work, giving them a sense of pride working together – none of which exists in companies that don’t put effort into fostering a positive team environment. So while it may seem like corporate culture is just another trend right now, in reality, it’s become a crucial element of success for software development stories.

Myth #4: HR is the one responsible for a good working culture

In that same sense, taking its internal culture seriously can seem to be the kind of issue that the Human Resources department (HR) exists for, leaving them responsible for designing, implementing, and making sure this culture exists. And while HR often gets credited with essential tasks like hiring, payroll management, and creating employee handbooks, reality can be a tad more complicated than that. HR is an integral part of any successful corporate culture, no doubt about it, but a strong corporate culture is something that everyone should be invested in creating. 

Healthy workplace culture can have a real-world impact on employees’ lives, after all – from greater job satisfaction to better performance and higher retention rates, when corporate culture isn’t treated as a sideshow but given the attention it deserves, everybody ultimately benefits. The HR team can bring structure and consistency to challenges of conflict resolution, personnel procedures, setting job expectations, and setting the tone for the values and objectives that employees should strive to embody when in their roles, but they are just one part of this puzzle. Supervisors, leadership teams, and employees all have to play their role in bringing these elements together to create a productive working environment.

Myth #5: It doesn’t impact the bottom line

Myths and realities behind creating a good corporate culture for your software development team

Sure, a good corporate culture sounds nice to have, but the biggest question behind these kinds of efforts is always the same: will it have a positive impact on our bottom line? Good software development relies on cooperation and clear communication between team members, both of which are made seamless by fostering a positive corporate culture. Teams that have a healthier corporate culture can quickly pick up new processes and identify areas for improvement. 

What’s more, employees who feel genuinely valued in their work environment have greater motivation to create the best solutions possible and take ownership of their projects. An excellent corporate culture is also invaluable during times of change or challenge. It allows developers to band together and come up with creative solutions to any obstacles they may encounter while keeping their spirits high. So yes, having a good corporate culture in the workplace is critical for any business that wants success. When employees feel valued, supported, and connected to the company’s mission, they are far more likely to respond with enthusiasm and dedication, which will impact morale throughout the company. Additionally, when customers recognize a company’s commitment to a strong corporate culture, they tend to view them more favorably resulting in more customer loyalty – a win for everyone!

Some final words

Building a good corporate culture is one of the most important and sometimes overlooked aspects of software development. A strong corporate culture helps foster collaboration between teams, provides a clear set of values to adhere to, and ultimately leads to better outcomes. People are the core foundation for any successful enterprise, so creating an atmosphere that allows developers to work together towards a common goal is essential in providing robust solutions. 

Good software development, in the end, is a combination of having the right tools, knowledge, and environment available. If any one of these three components is missing, success becomes elusive and the desired outcome might falter. Although having great tools easily accessible and having experts to help with coding issues is important, having a good working environment can be the foundation for achieving a successful project outcome. A positive work environment enables the team to interact and communicate better, sets expectations so everyone knows what’s expected of them, boosts morale and motivation levels among team members, and facilitates problem-solving through brainstorming sessions. In short, creating an environment of support helps the entire team reach their goals faster while still maintaining quality.

The Key Takeaways

  • Good company culture is more than just a fad or a tool to entice new developers to join your organization: it’s key to success.
  • However, there are plenty of misunderstandings and myths behind the development of a good working culture that need to be dispelled.
  • Among them is the idea that a good company culture is just a collection of perks, or that it doesn’t affect a company’s bottom line at all.
  • The reality is that making the effort to foster a good culture means that the people within it have a better environment to make projects shine, reach positive outcomes, and all in all positively affect your client.

Scio is an established Nearshore software development company based in Mexico that specializes in providing high-quality, cost-effective technologies for pioneering tech companies. We have been building and mentoring teams of engineers since 2003 and our experience gives us access not only to the knowledge but also the expertise needed when tackling any project. Get started today by contacting us about your project needs – We have teams available to help you achieve your business goals. Get in contact today!

Mythbusting: Comfort zones are always negative in software development. Is that true?

Mythbusting: Comfort zones are always negative in software development. Is that true?

Mythbusting

Curated by: Sergio A. Martínez
Software engineering has long been painted as a profession defined by constant disruption. New frameworks land every quarter, best practices shift, and teams feel the pressure to “stay ahead of the curve.” It is easy, then, to assume that comfort is the enemy of progress. Many leaders repeat the idea that stepping out of a comfort zone is the only way developers grow. The implication is clear: if engineers feel too comfortable, something must be wrong.
Yet this belief comes with blind spots. Comfort itself isn’t the problem. The issue is what people mistakenly associate with comfort: complacency, stagnation, or lack of ambition. In reality, for many high-performing engineering teams, comfort is the foundation that makes real learning and innovation possible.
A stable, well-designed environment—where developers understand expectations, trust their teammates, and have confidence in their core skills—creates the conditions where people can take meaningful risks instead of defensive ones. And that raises a better question: Is comfort actually a necessary ingredient for better engineering outcomes?
This article examines that question through the lens of team psychology, skill development, and real-world engineering culture. It also challenges the simplistic belief that “comfort zones are bad,” offering a more nuanced approach for leaders guiding complex software teams.

1. Why Comfort Gets a Bad Reputation in Engineering Culture

For years, software development has been shaped by a kind of informal mythos: real engineers chase challenges, disruption is good, and growth comes only from discomfort. The logic goes like this: if you’re not constantly learning, you’re falling behind.
There’s truth in the idea—technology does move fast, and engineering leaders need teams that adapt. But the cultural pressure to “always be uncomfortable” overlooks the realities of sustainable work and ignores how humans actually learn.
Comfort, in most engineering conversations, is treated as synonymous with:
Stagnation

A lack of curiosity

Reduced innovation

A resistance to change

This framing is misleading. Comfort is not the same as boredom or lack of ambition. In many cases, comfort is simply the state where a developer has enough mental bandwidth to think clearly, solve problems, and create.
Helena Matamoros, Head of Human Capital at Scio, puts it this way:
“It comes down to what somebody wants out of a career. If you’re skilled, deliver great results, and maintain balance, who’s to say that’s wrong? Comfort can actually make people more willing to take risks because they’re not operating from fear.”
Her point highlights a truth that engineering culture often glosses over: stability can actually strengthen creativity. Developers who feel psychologically safe tend to experiment more freely, propose bold solutions, and volunteer for stretch responsibilities.
Why the myth persists
From a leadership perspective, constant discomfort seems like a productivity guarantee. But in practice, environments that rely on stress or continuous challenge often create the opposite outcome:
Cognitive overload

Defensive programming habits

Burnout cycles

High turnover

Reduced long-term learning

Leaders striving for innovation sometimes push their teams into a survival mindset instead of an exploratory one.
How comfort supports performance
Teams with a healthy comfort zone often deliver stronger, more consistent results because they benefit from:
Predictability in communication and expectations

Trust between peers and stakeholders

Confidence from mastering core tools and skills

Focus due to reduced cognitive clutter

Smoother onboarding for new contributors

These are the same ingredients that high-performing teams rely on—especially when tackling complex systems or long-term products.
A comfort zone, then, is not an obstacle. It’s a stabilizing platform.

2. The Skill Behind Developing Skills: What Comfort Zones Really Are

The concept of a “comfort zone” is widely misunderstood. Psychologically, a comfort zone is not about laziness; it is about familiarity and control. It’s the space where a person feels confident enough to operate without constant self-monitoring.
According to The Psychology Spot, comfort zones are the space “we know completely, and in which we control almost everything.” They let people lower their cognitive load, stay calm, and make deliberate decisions. This is essential for deep learning.
Learning is rarely possible in a hyper-stressed or unfamiliar state. When developers feel anxious or overwhelmed, the brain prioritizes risk avoidance, not skill acquisition.
Comfort enables experimentation
The first time someone tries a new tool or pattern, the experience is often uneasy. But as familiarity grows, discomfort is replaced by confidence. Confidence creates bandwidth to explore, test, refactor, and iterate—exactly the behaviors software development rewards.
Author Rhonda Britten adds:
“You want to have the largest comfort zone possible, because the larger it is, the more masterful you become. When your comfort zone expands, you can take risks that truly shift you.”
Instead of pushing people out of their comfort zone, the more effective approach is expanding the comfort zone. Developers grow by building stable foundations, integrating new skills into them, and repeating the cycle.
Why the “step outside your comfort zone” advice is incomplete
The phrase sounds motivational, but in engineering, it oversimplifies:
It assumes discomfort is always productive.

It ignores psychological safety.

It frames learning as episodic rather than continuous.

It encourages leaders to create pressure instead of structure.

Most engineers don’t learn because they are pushed into discomfort. They learn because they have a secure foundation that lets them absorb new knowledge.
Comfort vs. complacency: an important distinction
Concept
Meaning
Engineering Impact
Comfort
Confidence and familiarity that allow focus
Better decisions, stable productivity
Complacency
Lack of curiosity or interest in improving
Skill decay, reduced quality
Control
Understanding the system and expectations
Faster debugging, more autonomy

Comfort is valuable. Complacency is dangerous. They are not the same, yet they often get lumped together. Leaders who mistake comfort for complacency risk disrupting high-performing environments unnecessarily.

3. How Developers Use Comfort Zones to Master Skills

When used intentionally, comfort zones accelerate growth rather than hinder it. They act as a home base developers can return to when exploring new languages, frameworks, or responsibilities.
The “two-track” model of engineering growth
High performers typically operate in a loop with two modes:
Mastery mode
They deepen their expertise in a familiar area—backend architectures, test automation, UI performance tuning, infrastructure, etc.
This is where comfort strengthens instincts.

Exploration mode
They push the boundary slightly—new frameworks, adjacent disciplines, new design patterns.
This is where innovation emerges.

Developers who feel comfortable in mastery mode are more willing to engage exploration mode.
Why comfort creates better learning paths
Comfort zones:
Let people focus without survival stress

Provide a fallback skillset during new challenges

Increase curiosity because fear is lower

Improve consistency in long projects

Reduce onboarding friction across teams

Imagine a backend engineer who is an expert in .NET. If they want to learn Go, their existing comfort with backend principles—concurrency models, APIs, patterns—gives them the confidence to explore without feeling lost. This makes the jump both faster and more enjoyable.
Comfort supports cross-disciplinary experimentation
Many developers eventually expand into:
QA

SRE

DevOps

Product thinking

Architecture

Team leadership

A strong comfort zone makes these transitions smoother because the developer understands who they are as an engineer. They know:
Their strengths

Their weaknesses

The types of challenges they enjoy

The environments where they perform at their best

This clarity fuels sustainable growth, not forced discomfort.
When comfort becomes a liability
Comfort becomes unproductive only when:
Developers stop being curious

Skills decay due to inactivity

Team dynamics become stagnant

Challenges remain untouched for too long

Processes ossify and resist modernization

But none of these problems come from comfort alone—they come from lack of engagement, poor leadership, or environments that fail to evolve.
As Helena Matamoros explains:
“If your objective is to grow, lead teams, or climb internally, then comfort has to evolve with you. It’s not complacency; it’s using your strengths to move into areas where you can shine.”
Comfort should scale with ambition, not replace it.

4. Finding the Right Balance: Comfort and Challenge in Modern Teams

Engineering leaders often ask: how much comfort is too much? How much challenge is healthy? The answer is balance.
Too much challenge produces burnout. Too much comfort risks stagnation. The sweet spot is a working environment where developers are confident in their core responsibilities while having structured opportunities to stretch into new ones.
Comfort zone expansion should be intentional, not accidental
Healthy engineering cultures introduce stretch opportunities that feel achievable, not overwhelming:
Taking ownership of a new module

Building a feature in an adjacent tech stack

Participating in architectural reviews

Pairing with teammates on new workflows

Leading a sprint or initiative

Shadowing roles in QA, DevOps, or Product

The goal is not to “throw someone into the deep end.” It’s to invite them into a new area with a safety net.
Comfort drives long-term technical excellence
Teams that enjoy stability and clarity tend to:
Ship more predictably

Reduce rework

Understand their domain deeply

Improve architectural quality

Collaborate with less friction

Capture institutional knowledge

Contribute more consistently during releases

These are all outcomes engineering leaders value.
Leaders play a crucial role
The misconception that discomfort equals growth often leads to management patterns that cause team instability. Sustainable engineering organizations do the opposite: they build an environment where comfort is abundant, and safe experimentation is encouraged.
Leaders can support this by:
Offering clarity in expectations

Removing unnecessary friction

Encouraging exploration without forcing it

Designing predictable processes

Providing internal mobility

Recognizing that mastery has value

Treating psychological safety as a performance driver

Comfort is not the opposite of ambition. It’s the foundation on which ambition stands.

5. Key Takeaways

Comfort zones are misunderstood in engineering culture.

Comfort is not complacency; it’s control and confidence.

Developers learn best by expanding their comfort zone, not escaping it.

Comfort enables meaningful risk-taking and experimentation.

Balanced teams rely on both mastery and exploration.

Leaders should create environments that offer stability and structured stretch opportunities.

FAQ

Comfort, Growth & Performance – FAQs

How psychological safety and challenge work together in high-performing engineering teams.

No. Growth comes from expanding a comfort zone, not abandoning it. Developers who feel confident and supported are more likely to explore new areas, take thoughtful risks, and learn effectively.

By setting clear expectations, introducing consistent challenges, and creating opportunities for cross-functional learning while maintaining psychological safety and trust.

Not aggressively. The goal is to design stretch opportunities that are achievable, well-supported, and aligned with each developer’s strengths and growth goals.

Yes. Comfort supports clear thinking, collaboration, and consistent delivery. Teams with a strong foundation of trust and stability tend to innovate more sustainably over time.

Mythbusting: Is learning new frameworks always beneficial for the development team?

Mythbusting: Is learning new frameworks always beneficial for the development team?

Mythbusting, Technologies

Curated by: Shaggy

Half of the positive outcomes in software development come from choosing the right approach to it. Keeping your processes updated is critical to ensure that a project goes smoothly, as software development is a complex process that requires careful planning and execution. To that end, there are a variety of different approaches, each with its advantages and disadvantages, that are ultimately chosen by the specific needs and goals of the project. So, with that in mind, let’s talk about frameworks.

Is-learning-new-frameworks-beneficial-for-the-development 1

In software development, a framework is a set of tools and libraries providing a common structure for building applications. A web application framework, for example, may include libraries for handling requests and responses, session management, and template rendering, as well as functionalities for routing, authentication, and other common tasks. By providing a structure, frameworks can make development easier by reducing the amount of boilerplate code needed, in addition to providing a consistent approach to solving common problems.

That’s why software developers and project managers are always on the lookout for new tools and frameworks that can make things more efficient, ensuring they remain updated and knowledgeable in the latest trends. However, there is often a trade-off between using the latest and greatest technology and having to learn how to use it effectively; anything new added to an established workflow will include a learning curve, and in some cases, the latest technology can slow down a team rather than help them achieve an outcome more efficiently. 

“Developers may need to spend time learning the new tool properly before they can start using it effectively, especially if the new tool is different enough from what the team is used to, causing more problems than it solves”, says Adolfo Cruz, Partner and PMO at Scio. “Ultimately, whether or not developers benefit from using the latest frameworks in software development depends on the particular case. It’s important to weigh the pros and cons of each new tool before making a decision.”

Is it a good idea to constantly adopt new frameworks?

Is-learning-new-frameworks-beneficial-for-the-development-3

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer to this question, but we can see on paper why this might make sense; by using the latest frameworks, a team can take advantage of the most up-to-date features and capabilities, and they are generally more efficient than older ones, which can save your team time and resources in the long run. Moreover, choosing a new framework shows that your team is committed to keeping up with the latest trends and technologies.

“In my opinion, [frequent change of frameworks] can be a negative thing, because sometimes the latest version still has some kinks to work out”, says Carlos Estrada, Lead Application Developer at Scio. “Using a technology that has already been tested by the community or by your team can save you a lot of bugs and headaches. Is not wrong to try the latest framework at every opportunity if you are part of a start-up that’s barely getting off the ground, but for a more established company with clients and expectations, I wouldn’t recommend it.”

With that in mind, adopting a new framework is not something to be taken lightly, and the best timing for this will vary depending on the specific project and the team involved, as well as the resources you can commit to it. To that end, there are a few general factors to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to implement a new framework into your development cycle: 

  • First, consider whether the new framework offers significant advantages over the current one. If it’s simply a personal preference, it may not be worth the time and effort required to switch frameworks. However, if the new framework offers significant improvements in terms of performance or efficiency, it may be worth considering. 
  • Then think about whether the team is ready and willing to learn a new framework. If team members are resistant to change, it may not be worth force-feeding them a new framework, lest it critically disrupts the development of a product. However, if they’re open to learning something new, adopting a new framework can be an excellent way to keep them engaged and excited about the project. 

So logically, there are downsides to this approach if an organization is constantly selecting new frameworks, negating any advantages that the framework might offer in the long run, especially in a field like software development where innovation and disruption are always moving forward.

“Many developers spend lots of time constantly learning the next new framework. There are many existing frameworks, and they move in and out of vogue rapidly. As mobility matures, developers will benefit more from consistent approaches to mobile development as they move across SDKs and frameworks. A consistent approach to security, integration, development, and management enables quality and speed”, are the words of this article on some common myths about software development; although it’s focused on mobile application design, it’s also a bit of good advice for any kind of software work.

So, while it may be tempting to keep trying frameworks to entice new projects, there are some definite advantages to sticking to one specific framework. For starters, using the same framework will help to streamline the development process, since you and your team will already be familiar with the tools and syntax, as well as making it easier to share code between projects, which can be a huge time-saver. And at the very end, using the same framework across multiple projects will give you a better understanding of its strengths and weaknesses, which can help you to develop more efficient and effective code.

But how do you  choose the “best” one?

Is-learning-new-frameworks-beneficial-for-the-development-4

Ultimately, there are several compelling reasons to be consistent with your frameworks during every project, and by doing so, you can enjoy a smoother development process and better code quality. However, different projects and challenges might need different approaches, so selecting a framework that makes sense for your organization requires consideration and care. As starting points, you might want to consider the…

  1. Support: Most frameworks are open-source and community-driven. One with a big pool of developers and engineers contributing to it and a direct line of communication in case of any issues will always be preferable. After all, a framework is as good as the people surrounding it, so if their last update was in 2018, no matter how good a framework might be, sooner or later it can leave you behind the curve.
  2. Security: The more security functions you can add through a software framework, the better, so choosing one that allows you this flexibility already makes it hard to top.
  3. Sustainability: The chosen framework keeps up with the Software Development Lifecycle? If not, then you are not working with a tool with a sustainable future, so selecting something scalable and with enough flexibility might be the best course of action.
  4. Documentation: Linked to the ‘Support’ point above, thorough and well-written documentation of the framework is invaluable to learn it quickly, a critical requirement if you are looking for a new framework that makes upgrades easy to implement.
  5. Outcomes: What does it offer to a client and a final user? Does it allow making progress on a project faster (for a client) while making it easy for feedback to be implemented satisfactorily (for an end user)? How a framework works beyond the development cycle is always an important consideration to make.

Ultimately, however, there’s no perfect answer to this question, and it will vary depending on the specific circumstances of each development cycle. And while there are benefits to using different frameworks for different projects, there is also value in being consistent with one particular framework, like reducing training costs and onboarding for new developers, making it easier to share code between different applications. Most importantly, it can promote greater consistency in the quality of the final products, so if you keep these general considerations in mind, you should be able to decide what’s best for your project and team at every turn.

The Key Takeaways

  • Selecting the correct approach to development can make the difference between a good outcome and a bad one.
  • Frameworks are a great example of this: selecting the correct one for a project can make things easier for everyone involved in development.
  • New frameworks are coming up all the time, so weighting their advantages and disadvantages is critical for any business looking to adopt them.
  • There are lots of reasons why having a consistent set of frameworks might work better in the long run than using whatever new one comes up, in terms of time, investment and money.

Scio is an established Nearshore software development company based in Mexico that specializes in providing high-quality, cost-effective technologies for pioneering tech companies. We have been building and mentoring teams of engineers since 2003 and our experience gives us access not only to the knowledge but also the expertise needed when tackling any project. Get started today by contacting us about your project needs – We have teams available to help you achieve your business goals. Get in contact today!

Mythbusting: Is ‘native development’ always the correct choice when designing an application?

Mythbusting: Is ‘native development’ always the correct choice when designing an application?

Mythbusting

Curated by: Sergio A. Martínez

When it comes to creating an app, native development is often seen as the gold standard. After all, native apps are designed specifically for a particular platform, making them more user-friendly and efficient, and allowing developers to create products optimized for specific devices and operating systems. This means that they can take full advantage of the features and capabilities of a specific platform, typically resulting in apps being more responsive and with better performance.

Is-native-development-icono

However, when it comes to mobile development, there are a few different schools of thought about the best way to design an app. While native development is popular, others prefer cross-platform or web development, and each has important advantages and disadvantages that could very well decide the outcome of a project from the very beginning. For that reason, it’s important to choose the right approach, which ultimately depends on the specific needs of the app, and the resources needed to bring it to life. So, today we bring the question: is native development always the best choice? Or does it have some hidden hurdles that could jeopardize a project in the long run? 

Because one thing is sure: with the complexity of today’s development environments, these questions are more difficult to answer than ever, but the correct choice is critical to ensure a positive outcome in any development project. After all, the wrong choice can mean more than a negative outcome (even setting a project back by months or years), so today we want to take a look into native development, the needs of mobile app design, and the pros and cons of choosing either approach, to see if the myth of “native development is always better” holds true or not.

Going native (in app development)

Is-native-development-1

The debate between native and web-based app development has been ongoing for a long time. Seeing how mobile applications are increasing in importance almost daily, pros and cons are thrown around all the time, and the correct choice for a given project depends on a wide range of variables. One key consideration, for example, is the target audience for the app; if the app is being developed for a general consumer audience, then a web-based approach may be more appropriate, because they can be accessed across a wide range of devices, including laptops, tablets, and smartphones. 

In contrast, native apps are typically designed for a specific operating system (such as iOS or Android) and can only be installed on devices that use that OS, likely making native apps less accessible to potential users, with the trade-off that this approach reduces the amount of work a development team needs to do to get the application up and running. With a very specific environment, there’s less room for errors. 

Another important factor to consider is the level of functionality required by the app: if it needs to take advantage of features that are specific to a particular platform (such as GPS or camera), then native development may be the only option. However, if the app can function adequately using web-based technologies, then a cross-platform approach may be more efficient and cost-effective. The correct choice depends, then, entirely on context: 

“Software development is a complex process, and there are many decisions that need to be made upfront. Some of these choices are technical in nature, others are more strategic, and still, others are more creative, such as coming up with new features or designing the user interface. With so many things to consider, it’s no wonder that making the right choices is critical for success”, says Adolfo Cruz, PMO Director and Partner at Scio. “Unfortunately, there is no easy formula for ensuring that all of the choices you make are correct; it requires a combination of experience, knowledge, and intuition. And in the case of native or web-based development, thinking ahead is critical, in terms of resources and work needed to make them work.”

There’s one thing for sure: native apps can be more expensive to develop and maintain. There are a lot of factors that contribute to their high cost, but first and foremost is that you have to design and develop separate versions of your app for each platform (iOS, Android, Windows, etc.) if you want to open your user base after the fact. That means more man-hours spent on development and more money spent on software licenses and other tools; for example, an app for iOS would need to be written in Swift or Objective-C, while an Android app would need to be written in Java or Kotlin, making cross-porting difficult. In addition, each platform has its own set of guidelines and best practices that need to be followed, making the development process more time-consuming and complicated.

In that sense, native app development can (counter-intuitively) be generally more complex than web or hybrid apps, increasing the odds that something will go wrong during development. On one hand, they can be more difficult to scale, as they need to be developed separately for each platform. And on the other hand, native apps can be less flexible than cross-platform or web-based apps, which can be developed using a single codebase and then deployed on multiple platforms. 

“Developers often think that it’s easier to strictly focus on building apps with the manufacturer SDKs and getting them to market. Native development has advantages, but without an integrated approach that provides app management, analytics, testing, and back-end integration, native app development has the potential to create more issues, more complexity, and increased spending down the road”, is the analysis of the tech news site SD Times. “If integration isn’t done right the first time, future projects will be delayed, and it will lead to an influx of performance issues that will only lead to more work for the developers and potentially unsatisfied users.

A zero-sum game

If you think that choosing between native development and a hybrid or web-based approach seems to be a zero-sum game, you would be right. After all, there’s no way you make a choice that wouldn’t have a counterweight somewhere during the development process, so careful consideration should be given to your approach to designing a new app. In terms of the needs of a project, we can select four key areas that your team might need to consider before starting a project:

Is-native-development-tabla
  • Resources: The amount of time, money, and man-hours needed to bring the project to fruition. The more platforms, the more resources are needed.
  • Userbase: The number of users a specific app can reach depending on its platform. The more platforms, the bigger the number of users.
  • Functionality: The number of challenges, errors, and bugs a team might need to fix, which become bigger as the number of platforms intended grows. 
  • Future: The more platforms the app is available, the easier the task of keeping it available for longer, not running the risk of getting it “landlocked” in an environment.

Native development, for example, can provide a better user experience, but as we already mentioned, it may be more time-consuming and expensive. A web-based development, in contrast, is faster and generally needs fewer resources but has the risk of offering a subpar experience for some users with the “wrong” kind of device.

And of course, this table doesn’t take into consideration things like specific features needed for the app (which might change the value weight of each of these choices), or more nuanced circumstances in development, like the adoption rate of a determined platform in a specific region, or circumstances outside development (like legal requirements when publishing apps), but it illustrates how this decision might require a careful balance between outcomes. 

“It can be tempting to want to develop a native app for every new platform that comes out. After all, native apps tend to provide the best performance and the most seamless user experience”, concludes Adolfo Cruz. “However, there are some specific scenarios where native app development just doesn’t make sense, such as if you’re only developing a simple app or if you need to support older devices. In general, it’s important to carefully weigh the pros and cons of native app development before making a decision. Every positive outcome comes from understanding the nuance of development, and ultimately depends on the needs of the project, keeping in mind that each approach has its advantages and disadvantages.”

The Key Takeaways

  • Creating software requires making a lot of difficult choices to ensure the success of an app, especially in the current mobile environment.
  • There are a wide variety of approaches to this, but one of the most popular is native development, or designing for a specific, particular, platform.
  • Although native development has lots of advantages, especially on the back end, sometimes these advantages are not enough to counter a web-based approach.
  • Careful consideration of the pros and cons, a clear picture of the direction of the app, and using your resources properly are what will determine the need for native development, but it shouldn’t be treated as a default.

Scio is an established Nearshore software development company based in Mexico that specializes in providing high-quality, cost-effective technologies for pioneering tech companies. We have been building and mentoring teams of engineers since 2003 and our experience gives us access not only to the knowledge but also the expertise needed when tackling any project. Get started today by contacting us about your project needs – We have teams available to help you achieve your business goals. Get in contact today!

Quiet Quitting: Myths, facts, and misunderstandings about a new reality of working

Quiet Quitting: Myths, facts, and misunderstandings about a new reality of working

Mythbusting, Scio

Curated by: Sergio A. Martínez

What is the future of work? That is a question that virtually every organization, in both the private and public sectors, from software to manufacturing to service and everything in between, has been asking themselves since the onset of the pandemic in 2020. Agreeing on an opinion seems to be impossible, but what we are sure about is that our idea of “work” has changed dramatically, with new ideas, models, and philosophies getting discussed every day.

Quiet Quitting: Myths, facts, and misunderstandings about a new reality of working

“Quiet quitting” is one such concept. After this term got popular on social media in 2022, the underlying meaning of “quiet quitting” started to elicit all kinds of opinions about what it means, going from those who see it favorably to those who see it as the norm (and nothing revolutionary), to even those against this attitude for a diversity of reasons. For those not in the know, “quiet quitting” means “performing the strict minimum requirements of a job within the allotted work hours”, a philosophy gaining supporters across all industries and with all kinds of workers and collaborators. And getting to the root of this line of thinking is not difficult to do. 

“People are tired of being stifled by leaders who don’t trust or value them. If there’s no freedom to take a risk without fear of being punished for a bad result, then why take a risk? If there’s no acknowledgment of their capacity and no opportunity to contribute their full value, then why would they want to do more?”, says the analysis of Forbes Magazine in their article “The Cure For ‘Quiet Quitting’: Humanize Work”, which takes a look at the current job landscape and the factors that might push a worker into this mindset.

After all, it’s no secret that the current job market is becoming increasingly competitive, and people are finding it harder to get the jobs they want. At the same time, jobs are becoming more demanding, with some employers increasingly expecting employees to work longer hours for less pay, which not only causes a lot of stress and unhappiness among workers but also pushes them to question whether work is really worth it. Some people are even choosing to opt out of the traditional workforce altogether in favor of a more flexible lifestyle. This, in turn, is creating severe shortages in many fields that, with our current trajectory, will cause a lot of problems that will only continue to grow. 

“I think this is old behavior under a new name and has always existed to some degree, but now it has a name”, continues Helen about the origins of quiet quitting. “It used to be a lot more common in other areas (for example, the public sector), where you could stop working at a certain hour and not have to worry about it. But in the software development industry, this issue is a lot more complex. The issue is how to measure the effectiveness and productivity of a team member. It’s easy to see someone who answers emails or does things outside of work hours as a good employee, but I don’t agree with that either. You are not giving your collaborators a complete work-life balance.”

The numbers don’t lie; according to the online publication Axios, “82% of Gen Zers say the idea of doing the minimum required to keep their jobs is pretty or extremely appealing”, and a good portion of them are already committing to that, bringing back the idea of “working to live” instead of the other way around, putting priorities like family, friends and even hobbies ahead of work as the norm.

Finding the right angle for an old challenge

Quiet Quitting: Myths, facts, and misunderstandings about a new reality of working

“The thing about ‘quiet quitting’ is that it doesn’t describe a specific phenomenon, but many different situations with their own context. Maybe you are an effective person within your working hours, and not being available after you shut down your computer doesn’t mean you are not an engaged collaborator, delivering on time”, expresses Helena Matamoros, Head of Human Capital T Scio, about the increasing popularity of this term. “After all, it’s easy to see when a person is actually “quiet-quitting”; they miss deadlines, they are often unavailable during work hours, their emails go unanswered, they appear disengaged during meetings, or they don’t take advantage of anything extra the company offers, like social meetings or training courses. And even then, that attitude can sometimes be the result of burnout instead of active disinterest. Is a complex situation that the name ‘quiet quitting’ doesn’t completely describe.” 

The thing is that, when trying to separate a good collaborator from a not-so-good one, past strategies don’t work anymore. In the old days, the traditional workplace was all about face time and being physically present in the office, but with the rise of technology, that’s no longer the case; good employees cannot be judged by how many hours they’re putting in at the office, but rather by the results they’re achieving. This can lead us to some myths about what an engaged employee is, harming more than helping engagement within the workplace: 

  • First, good employees are always available.

    As already discussed, with email and instant messaging, it’s expected that employees will be available outside of normal working hours. But that doesn’t mean those good employees are always glued to their devices. They know how to strike a balance between work and life, and they know when to unplug and take a break.

  • Second, good employees prioritize work above everything else.

    Many people still believe that employees should put their jobs ahead of any other priorities, even if it means sacrificing their well-being. However, a smart workplace knows that employees thrive when they feel they are valued members of a team, and companies should focus on creating an environment where employees can have a good balance and feel supported and appreciated. 

  • Third, good employees are always hyper-focused.

    When it comes to working, it’s often seen as a good thing to be hyper-focused, with the ability to laser in on a task and get it done quickly and efficiently is generally viewed as a positive trait. But contrary to popular belief, employees who take breaks during the workday, or take time to socialize, are more productive than those who don’t. Likewise, employees who telecommute or work flexible hours are just as productive as those who work traditional nine-to-five schedules. In the end, it depends on the person and the rhythm they need to achieve good results.

“Seeing it from both sides, the employee and the employer, it all comes down to having a clear work culture within the organization that everybody can understand and adopt”, explains Helen, referencing how Scio tries to be flexible and offer resources to keep their collaborators as far from burnout or disengagement as possible, especially important when our company collaborates with remote developers and engineers from all over Latin America. “If you know what is expected of you, and what is acceptable or not for the company, it’s easier to identify if you are dealing with someone practicing quiet quitting. In the end, there is no one-size-fits-all solution, but starting by debunking outdated myths and practices, any company can create an environment that is tailored to the needs of their employees.”

Pros and cons to both sides of the argument regarding “quiet quitting” remain relevant, however. On one hand, working strictly within your limits can help you to avoid burnout and to maintain a healthy work-life balance. On the other hand, it can also make you appear inflexible and unresponsive to the needs of the employer. And while in some cases working longer hours can help you to get ahead in your career, it can also lead to exhaustion and poor health, which could make such an effort too costly. Ultimately, what we can conclude is that this attitude is not something new, but its popularity is a symptom that flexibility and balance in the workplace are more important and appreciated than ever, and any company that supports and understands its collaborators doesn’t need much else to keep an engaged, productive, and motivated team always ready to give their all.

The Key Takeaways

  • The term “quiet quitting”, while popular in social media, is not a new phenomenon, although it can be taken as a symptom of a larger issue.
  • The main issue is that the term “quiet quitting” falls short when describing the wide range of attitudes and practices that come with working.
  • What it points out is the increasing need to keep a better work-life balance, and quiet quitting and burnout can be the result of a lacking workplace.
  • What really matters is the outcome achieved by every individual worker; with the correct support, keeping a collaborator engaged and motivated is far less difficult.

Scio is an established Nearshore software development company based in Mexico that specializes in providing high-quality, cost-effective technologies for pioneering tech companies. We have been building and mentoring teams of engineers since 2003 and our experience gives us access not only to the knowledge but also the expertise needed when tackling any project. Get started today by contacting us about your project needs – We have teams available to help you achieve your business goals. Get in contact today!

The challenge of working smarter: Cognitive inertia and software development. 

The challenge of working smarter: Cognitive inertia and software development. 

Mythbusting, Project Management

Horizontal banner showing cognitive inertia in software teams—gears moving forward automatically despite a directional change. Visual metaphor for outdated workflows.
Whether you are coding software or managing a company that creates software, the name of the game is optimization: there’s always a better way to do things, a wrinkle to iron out, a bump to flatten quickly. However, even if we somehow reach a perfect process, it will probably not last long. Technology is always moving forward.

Then why is it often difficult to adjust your development practices to ensure you always obtain a better outcome? Why is it so hard to leave behind “tried and true” methods of development to try new ideas to better the efficiency of any process?

It’s not surprising to find out that the root of a lot of these issues lay within human psychology, specifically a phenomenon that can help us understand how we conceive our practices, and the sooner we can work towards mastering how it works, the better our outcomes will become: cognitive inertia.

The human side of change.

Cognitive inertia” is a term gaining popularity in software development, and with a good reason: it aptly describes why it might be so hard to change approaches to development, even in the face of an evident need of trying something else:

“Changing management is an age-old problem; migrating to a new process with new technologies can represent a big change. The management teams are met with cognitive inertia and a long list of reasons why new methods and technologies will not work. So, instead, they work harder, and the harder they work, the farther behind they get”, points out Barry Hutt, CRO at Viviota Software, in his post “Cognitive Inertia a great challenge to innovation.”

It’s a paradoxical outcome, but to begin to understand this issue, we should define clearly what “cognitive inertia” is. Cognitive inertia is not “belief perseverance”, or the phenomenon of maintaining the same belief even when presented with new information. Instead, cognitive inertia is the inability to change how a person processes information, which is a much more complicated framework that involves motivation, emotion, and developmental factors.

Its consequences can be seen easily in software development when we think of practices like testing or brainstorming, which makes the old adage “work smarter, not harder” a difficult one to implement, especially as a project or an organization grows in complexity.

“Cognitive inertia evolved because the brain optimizes energy efficiency. If you keep the same behavior and don’t question it, your brain conserves space and can make faster, simpler decisions. On a social level, maintaining consistent behavior preserves social cohesion by maintaining social roles and responses”, explains the blog “Cognitive Inertia: The Status Quo Bias” by Joseph Adebisi.

However, it’s obvious why in a field like software development this can bring problems in the long run. After all, even if roles in a development team are clearly defined, the multitude of solutions that need to be reached at every step of the process (from the ultimate goal of the client to fixing the smallest of bugs) benefit from the creativity that surges from having multiple approaches.

Business professional pointing at virtual cogwheels, representing collaboration and process iteration in software development
Smarter software delivery starts with questioning assumptions, not just repeating past solutions.

The key to collaboration

The approach of Scio to this issue, both internally and in the work, we do with our clients, is knowing that a “solution” is more than having the seemingly right answer for everything; it is developing a process that lets you question and rework the methods you used to arrive at to fine-tune the outcome.

“When you build walls, it’s easy to keep piling bricks on, one after another, in every house you build. That might work for a while, but if now you are looking to build something with a different purpose, like a cathedral or a hospital, will that approach still be the best?” comments Luis Aburto, CEO, and Co-Founder of Scio. “What happens when you partner with someone that comes and says ‘hey, maybe this bricklaying will not support the multiple stories we need for a hospital, so what if we try this instead?’”

A culture of constant sharing through collaboration, then, might be a way to avoid the pitfalls of cognitive inertia. After all, cognitive inertia, as real inertia does, keeps the same trajectory if nothing initiates a change, so the more different perspectives you have, the stronger the final product may be.

“Human beings love to help. Doing it productively and seeing people overcome obstacles it’s a very rewarding experience, and at a company like Scio, where collaboration is a key part of us, you also get the benefit of cross-pollinating different parts of your organization”, says Yamila Solari, Co-Founder and Coaching Leader at Scio. “If you create a culture of mutual help and support, where one person talks to another and so on, your culture is always enriching itself.”

This makes coaching one of the best tools Scio has to keep our organization moving forward, making sure that knowledge gets shared around between collaborators to strengthen the outcomes of every person and every team. This circles back to our earlier article about outputs and outcomes in software development, where we try to understand the purpose and goals of any project we collaborate with before deciding on the approach that will work best for that specific job. Sometimes laying bricks in the usual way will be enough, but that doesn’t mean that developers shouldn’t have an open mind to try new things if they hit a snag during development.

Wooden blocks with icons representing efficiency, focus, and process continuity over a blue background
Disruptions in daily workflows compete with the same mental resources needed for critical tasks, reducing efficiency.

Cognitive inertia in the day-to-day

However, one should not assume that the issue of cognitive inertia only affects an organization at the macro level, or that it is always a bad thing; it’s part of our daily work whether we notice it or not. For example: if you are focused on a task, and an interruption comes (be it a software update, an Internet outage, an unforeseen meeting, or even a coworker just stopping by to ask something), how difficult is it for you to resume your rhythm at full speed?

Martin Cracauer, CTO of the software development firm Third Law, holds the opinion that the way our brain absorbs information and uses it in the short term is a form of cognitive inertia, and keeping information properly compartmentalized is a way to ensure a task, or a whole project, doesn’t get derailed:

“A lunch break absorbing lots of information that has nothing to do with your work task is relaxing because it does not compete with the work task memory. But a work meeting that touches actual work stuff competes for the same cognitive machinery. […] Your Company makes its money on the programming tasks that are completed today, so you just traded away the brain state needed for Today’s Task in favor of some imaginary later benefit.”

What this means is that some form of cognitive inertia (the one that puts a developer “in the zone” when writing code) can be used to the advantage of the development cycle if we structure the project with clear goals and purposes that need minimal interruptions, and let the developer to fully focus in the day to day progress. 

The Agile methodologies, when well implemented, help with this as it lets organizations like Scio maintain a high level of cohesion in the development cycle that doesn’t give enough space for distractions. A well-managed team knows its goals, the potential pitfalls, and biases that can surge in development, and has the support to focus on the tasks that actually get things done, letting the outcome dictate everything else the product might need.

Cognitive inertia, then, is not inherently a good or bad thing in software development; a well-balanced organization can manage, and even use it to its advantage. After all, the software is not about working harder, it’s about implementing the smartest approach and letting the results speak for themselves.

How Cognitive Inertia Impacts Software Teams

Behavior
Impact on Development
Solution (with Nearshore Partner)
Reusing old tech stacks blindly Missed opportunities for speed, cost, or scalability Cultural alignment enables conversations about alternatives
Fear of questioning decisions Blocked innovation and low morale Nearshore teams trained in collaborative communication
“We’ve always done it this way” Slower delivery and tech debt accumulation Fresh perspective from outside the company mindset

The Key Takeaways:

1.

Cognitive inertia is not stubbornness, it’s the way some people get used to processing information in their day today.

2.

Changing this inertia can be difficult, but is not an insurmountable problem, and it’s a critical need for software development.

3.

Collaboration and tools like coaching can be effective in mitigating the effects of cognitive inertia, feeding constant new information to avoid settling on a single approach.

4.

However, cognitive inertia is not all bad; it helps a developer to focus as long as interruptions and problems derived from sudden changes of course are avoided.

5.

It all comes down to good management. Being aware of bias and cognitive traps, constantly encouraging new knowledge between collaborators, coaching and a good implementation of Agile methodologies can result in a healthy development environment that guarantees a good outcome.

FAQs: Cognitive Inertia in Software Development

Q1: What is cognitive inertia in software teams?

A1: It refers to the resistance to changing existing thinking or methods, even when better alternatives exist—common in both in-house and outsourced teams.

Q2: How does cognitive inertia affect software outsourcing?

A2: If the outsourcing partner simply follows orders without challenging assumptions or proposing alternatives, innovation suffers and delivery slows.

Q3: How can nearshore teams help break cognitive inertia?

A3: Nearshore partners with cultural alignment and agile maturity can question outdated practices, propose improvements, and collaborate effectively in real time.

Q4: What signs indicate cognitive inertia in a dev team?

A4: Repeated use of legacy code, resistance to change, and pushback on new processes or tools are red flags.

Q5: Why is cultural alignment important in addressing cognitive inertia?

A5: Teams that understand the client’s mindset, but aren’t limited by it, can offer a balance of challenge and empathy—critical for breaking inertia productively.

Final Thoughts

Cognitive inertia isn’t usually intentional—but it can quietly slow things down. Whether it comes from habits, old processes, or just being too comfortable with the way things have always been done, the result is the same: missed opportunities, delays, and projects that don’t reach their full potential.

In software outsourcing, this kind of “auto-pilot” thinking is especially risky. When your team doesn’t feel empowered to ask questions or suggest better ways of doing things, it’s hard to move forward.

To truly work smarter, you need a partner that brings more than just technical skills—you need someone who can offer fresh ideas, challenge assumptions, and help your team grow.

Work With a Nearshore Partner That Helps You Think Differently

At Scio, we’re more than just developers. We’re collaborators, advisors, and partners in building great software. For over 20 years, we’ve supported U.S. companies—especially in places like Austin and Dallas—with nearshore teams that understand both the tech and the people side of development.

If you’re ready to break the cycle and build a team that truly works smarter…

Let’s talk and explore how Scio can help your product—and your team—move forward with clarity and confidence.