What is a growth mindset truly about? 4 myths that you should avoid

What is a growth mindset truly about? 4 myths that you should avoid

Scio, Software Development, Successful Outsourcing

Written by: Scio Team 
Business professional reviewing Agile methodology dashboard while choosing a Lean Product Development partner

Introduction

In software development, the difference between a team that stagnates and one that scales often comes down to mindset. CTOs and VPs of Engineering in hubs like Austin, Dallas, and Silicon Valley know this well: technologies evolve, markets shift, and the pressure to deliver innovation never slows down. This is where the growth mindset comes in. Popularized in education and psychology, it’s now a critical concept for software teams. But despite its popularity, the term is often misunderstood. Let’s clarify what a growth mindset really means for software leaders and explore the myths that can derail your teams if left unchecked.

Why Growth Mindset Matters for U.S. Software Teams

For U.S.-based technology companies, having developers with a growth mindset means more than just a positive attitude—it translates into resilience, adaptability, and faster adoption of new tools and practices. Take, for example, distributed or nearshore teams. Leaders in Austin working with developers in Mexico often highlight how a growth mindset culture reduces friction, accelerates onboarding, and creates an environment where challenges become stepping stones rather than roadblocks. In today’s market—whether you’re scaling SaaS products, integrating AI-driven features, or managing compliance-heavy systems—a growth mindset in your development team is not a “nice to have.” It’s strategic.
Growth mindset in software engineering — continuous learning, feedback and collaboration.
A growth mindset helps developers expand skills, collaborate better, and adapt to new technologies.
And a lot has changed in the software development field over the years. New languages, frameworks, and development practices mean that it’s more important than ever to develop a well-rounded skill set. To become a truly effective software developer, you need to be able to work in a variety of environments and be comfortable with a range of technologies. You also need to have a strong foundation in the basics, including principles of software design, data structures, and algorithms. And finally, it’s important to be able to communicate effectively with other team members, whether it’s working with architects to design a system or collaborating on code reviews. A growth mindset is the best strategy to do so, helping you stretch into other important areas (like teamwork, communication, or leadership) outside of your normal interests. However, getting into a growth mindset is not an easy task. And it isn’t because accomplishing this is singularly hard or demanding, but because there are a lot of myths and misconceptions about what a growth mindset is, or how to effectively harness this way of thinking to become a better developer. So, what are some of the myths about developing a growth mindset, and how to avoid falling into them?

Myth 1: It’s an intrinsic quality to have

We see this kind of thinking all the time, from the “there are two kinds of people in the world” type of mentality, to the idea that natural talent or ability is the most important quality to have (and bad luck to anyone born without it). However, when it comes to a growth mindset, this idea is harmful and simply not true.  After all, a person with a true growth mindset believes that intelligence and talent are not fixed traits; everyone can grow and improve with the necessary effort, and that every challenge is an opportunity to grow. So why isn’t everyone running around with a growth mindset? Well, because a fixed mindset, or the belief that intelligence and talent are fixed traits that cannot be changed, is still very prevalent, and even the default in our current society. This mentality leads people to give up easily, believing that they cannot improve, simply because they are afraid of failing. However, with the right tools and environment, anyone can learn to grow, stop fearing the failures that are necessary to evolve, and better themselves in areas of skill that they thought impossible before.

Myth 2: It’s all about being positive

Being «positive» is often touted as the key to success in life, an antidote of sorts for all kinds of problems, from personal relationships to financial success. Generally, the thinking goes that if you stay positive, good things will happen to you. Although starting with a positive attitude certainly helps, this is not the most important element of a true growth mindset. A growth mindset is about taking risks, learning from failure, and always striving to improve.  In fact, «positive thinking» can be a form of self-deception that can prevent people from achieving their full potential; being successful in any area requires the willingness to face your limitations, recognize them, and make an effort to improve. By pretending that everything is always rosy, people with an uncritically positive outlook may avoid taking risks and miss out on growth opportunities. So, if you want to achieve real growth, you need to have a positive attitude toward failure and a willingness to take risks. Only then will you be able to reach your full potential.
Chess piece symbolizing strategy and growth mindset in software development challenges
A growth mindset in software development helps teams face challenges and improve performance.

Myth 3: A growth mindset guarantees positive results

One of the key elements of a growth mindset is the willingness to take on risks and challenges. Learning and improving on areas we never considered before requires effort, the willingness to hear criticisms and feedback, and committing time and resources to achieve it. But most importantly, anyone who wishes to get into a growth mindset needs to understand that failure is always an option and that a growth mindset does not guarantee positive outcomes all of the time. Instead, it is simply one tool that can help achieve goals.  What matters is how we deal with these challenges and setbacks. If we allow them to defeat us, then our growth mindset won’t matter. But if we use them as opportunities to learn and grow, then we can overcome anything. So yes, a growth mindset is important, but it’s not a silver bullet. It won’t magically make everything better. But it will give us the strength to keep going when times are tough, helping us see failure as a normal part of the learning process, and letting us get ready for the next challenge. As one might say, “you are either learning or winning”.

Myth 4: Absolutely everything is possible

As the saying goes, a “jack-of-all-trades is a master of none”, and the notion that anyone can be an expert at everything is misguided and can set unrealistic expectations when it comes to getting a growth mindset. The core tenet here is that you can develop any skill you want if you put effort into it, and that people in general don’t exist in a static state that is impossible to change. If, as a developer, you want to have skills that go beyond pure technical know-how, like leadership, teamwork, negotiation, or public speaking because you want to become more well-rounded. It could open up opportunities for you and there are techniques and strategies you can try to be more proficient at.  But don’t develop unrealistic expectations about it. If we believe that we should be able to do everything expertly, we’re bound to feel like failures when we inevitably fall short. An average person has affinities and weak spots in different areas, which is fine and normal. This should neither stop you from trying new things nor make you believe that you need to be the best at everything you attempt. What’s more, this belief devalues expertise. If everyone is supposedly an expert, then what’s the point of learning from those who have spent their lives honing a particular skill? Instead of trying to be good at everything, we would be better off accepting that we have our limits and that there are some things we’re simply not cut out for and focusing on becoming the best at what we’re interested in. Only then can we truly excel.

Growth Mindset vs Fixed Mindset in Software Teams

Growth Mindset vs Fixed Mindset — Key Dimensions for Software Teams
Dimension
Growth Mindset
Fixed Mindset
Learning Sees mistakes as feedback for improvement Avoids challenges for fear of failure
Collaboration Values feedback and peer reviews Sees feedback as criticism
Innovation Experiments with new tech stacks Sticks only to what already knows
Adaptability Thrives in nearshore and hybrid models Struggles outside comfort zone

How Leaders in Austin and Dallas Apply Growth Mindset

Local tech leaders know that a growth mindset is not just theory—it’s a competitive advantage.

  • Austin startups: invest in continuous learning, sponsoring certifications and training in emerging frameworks.
  • Dallas enterprises: strengthen collaboration by pairing senior engineers with nearshore juniors, creating mentorship loops that benefit both sides.
  • Silicon Valley companies: normalize failure as part of innovation, rewarding teams not only for wins but also for documenting lessons that improve delivery speed.

This approach demonstrates that adopting a growth mindset is not only about individual improvement—it’s about how entire teams adapt, collaborate, and sustain growth across distributed models.

Hand placing wooden blocks with lightbulb icons, symbolizing innovation and growth mindset in software development
Visual representation of growth mindset and continuous learning in software development.

Key Takeaways

  • Growth mindset ≠ positivity only — it’s about resilience, risk-taking, and learning from feedback.
  • Failure is feedback, not the end — the best U.S. tech teams see mistakes as data to improve.
  • Not everything is possible — realistic expectations prevent burnout and value real expertise.
  • Leaders in Austin & Dallas apply it daily — through mentorship, certifications, and cultural alignment with nearshore teams.
  • For U.S. companies, mindset is strategic — it impacts delivery speed, team morale, and long-term innovation.

Final Thoughts: Why It Matters Now

At its core, acquiring a growth mindset should benefit you personally. It’s about believing in your ability to learn, improve, and become a better developer—and a better leader. The payoff? Increased motivation, resilience, and a stronger capacity to see challenges as opportunities instead of setbacks.

But for U.S. tech leaders in Austin, Dallas, and beyond, the stakes are even higher. In today’s competitive market, a growth mindset directly impacts delivery speed, team morale, and innovation. When combined with the right cultural alignment—like what nearshore teams in Mexico can offer—it becomes a driver for real business outcomes.

Let’s talk about nearshoring. At Scio, we’ve been building and mentoring software teams since 2003, helping CTOs and VPs of Engineering create high-performing squads that don’t just code—they adapt, grow, and scale alongside your business.

FAQs About Growth Mindset in Software Teams

Q1: Does a growth mindset really improve developer performance?

Yes. Studies show growth mindset teams adapt faster, handle feedback better, and innovate more effectively.

Q2: How can U.S. companies foster growth mindset in nearshore teams?

By encouraging mentorship, continuous learning, and cross-border collaboration in distributed teams.

Q3: Is growth mindset the same as optimism?

Not quite. It’s about resilience and adaptability, not blind positivity.

Q4: Can developers shift from fixed to growth mindset?

Absolutely — with the right leadership and culture, developers can change how they approach feedback and challenges.

Q5: Why is growth mindset critical for Austin or Dallas tech leaders?

Because adaptability and cultural alignment directly impact delivery speed, product quality, and innovation.

Suggested Resources for Further Reading

To explore more about how mindset and methodology shape software success, here are some recommended resources:

Internal Links

Discover how Latin American nearshore teams align culturally with U.S. companies and why this cultural fit drives stronger outcomes. Read more.

Compare Traditional vs Agile software development methods and see which approach best supports your product strategy. Learn more.

External Links

Harvard Business Review – What Having a Growth Mindset Actually Means: A must-read analysis of how this concept is often misunderstood inside organizations.

McKinsey – Achieving Growth: Putting Leadership Mindsets into Action: Practical insights on how leaders turn growth mindset into behaviors that accelerate business outcomes.

McKinsey – How Top Performers Drive Innovation and Growth: Research on how leading companies foster innovative mindsets to expand within and beyond their core business.

“They have programmers in Mexico?”: The story of remote work at Scio with CEO and Founder Luis Aburto (Part 1)

“They have programmers in Mexico?”: The story of remote work at Scio with CEO and Founder Luis Aburto (Part 1)

Interculturality, Latin America Nearshoring, Nearshore Software Development, Outsourced Engineering Team, Scio, Software Development, Strategic Digital Nearshoring, Success Stories

By Scio Team 
Luis Aburto, CEO and Founder of Scio, a nearshore software development company in Mexico, specializing in remote teams for U.S. tech companies.
When it comes to working remotely and managing a hybrid working model, nothing is better than hearing it from someone doing it since 2003. So we sat down with Luis Aburto, CEO and Founder of Scio to find out what worked, what didn’t, what is Nearshore development, and the long road from emails to agile methodologies. Enjoy!
As a potential client, if I wanted to work with Nearshore developers, I would like to know how they can maintain cohesion in the team. Anyone can say “I’ll find you a developer” and then open LinkedIn, but that doesn’t make you a recruiter. It’s not about just finding resources, it’s about building high-performing teams of people who integrate well, and I’d like to see how they achieve that and motivate their collaborators to strive for a well-done job. That’s what I would look for in a Nearshore company. Scio started all the way back in 2003, and in the years since, it refined a unique perspective on software development, remote hybrid work, and what’s next for a programmer interested in joining an industry at the forefront of innovation and adaptability. But how did it all begin?
Luis Aburto, CEO and Founder of Scio, a nearshore software development company in Mexico, specializing in remote teams for U.S. tech companies.
Luis Aburto, CEO & Founder of Scio, on building nearshore software teams for U.S. companies—especially in Texas.

Nearshore: A new way to develop software

Well, at the end of the 90s, very few organizations in the US realized that software development could be done in Mexico. Clients had the idea that “IT outsourcing” was something you did in India, and nowhere else you could get these kinds of services. One of the first companies to talk about “Nearshore development” was Softtek, which started to promote this model around 1998 or so. At the time, the attitude was something like “Seriously? They have programmers in Mexico?”, and certain friction existed towards the idea of outsourcing development here. Now, since Scio began, our focus has been working with North American clients so, by definition, we have been doing remote work since day one. Sure, we occasionally visited clients to discuss the stages of a project, collect requirements, and present advances, but collaboration has mainly been remote, through conference calls and the like. Technology wasn’t what it is now. Skype was the most advanced thing then, but Internet speeds gave us barely enough quality to do videoconferences, so we used phone landlines and conference speakers to make calls. It sounds quaint nowadays, I think, but it helped us start developing efficient ways to collaborate remotely. It all happened exclusively at the office, too. Today it is very common to have a good broadband connection with optical fiber at home, but in ’03, dedicated Internet connections for businesses were barely enough, so if you worked from home, sending your code to a remote server somewhere and trying to integrate it with the code written by the office team was a very slow process, and not efficient at all.
Vintage office desk with a typewriter, invoices, and coins—illustrating the pre-Cloud era of software development and Scio’s early remote-work context serving U.S. clients from Mexico.
Early nearshore realities: collaborating with U.S. clients from Mexico before Cloud DevOps—foundations that shaped Scio’s modern remote delivery.
Also, we didn’t have stuff like GitHub or Azure DevOps, where everybody can send their code to the Cloud and run tests from there, so even if your clients were remote, you needed to be at the office to access your Source Code Repository with reasonable speed. Internet speeds eventually started to get better and the possibility of working from home became more feasible. Around 2012 we started by implementing a policy where you could choose one day to work remotely per week, so by the time this pandemic got here, everyone already had a computer and good Internet plans, so it wasn’t a very radical change for us. We just leaped from doing it a single day of the week to doing it daily. And yes, I do mean “this” pandemic because it isn’t the first one Scio has gone through. Back in 2009, we had the Swine Flu (AH1N1) in Mexico, and we had to completely shut down because going home and working from there couldn’t be done by everyone. The infrastructure necessary wasn’t there yet, so you couldn’t ask the team to work remotely overnight, even for a short while.
Other things changed once we could implement this “Home Office Day” policy, mainly realizing this was not a “lost” day of work. The response to it was great, as you could keep in contact with the team without getting lost in a “black hole” of not knowing what was going on, and do other stuff if your tasks allowed it. Eventually, we had a couple of team members that, for personal reasons, left the office to work remotely full-time. The spouse of one of them got a job in Guadalajara and he didn’t want to leave us, so asked if we would be okay with this arrangement. After some time seeing how well this worked out, we fully opened to the idea of hiring more people remotely, to the point we had four full-time collaborators in Guadalajara on a co-working space we rented so they wouldn’t feel alone.
Computer screens with programming code reflected on eyeglasses, symbolizing Scio’s transition from email-based workflows to agile methodologies for U.S. clients.
Scio’s shift from email-heavy workflows to agile practices transformed collaboration with U.S. tech companies.

A technology leap

For our clients, things worked a little differently too. Back in the early 2000’s, collaboration happened a lot through email, where you had these long chains of messages that contained whole project proposals and development plans. You can still do that of course, but it’s more common nowadays to just say “hey, let’s have a quick call, I’ll explain this and you can give me your feedback” to arrive at a decision, than having to compose an email, read it, discuss it with every relevant person, take note of all the stuff that wasn’t clear, and respond back and forth during the whole dev cycle. This was our very early collaboration flow until agile methodologies became the norm. Soon our teams had daily scrum meetings with clients, with the key difference that, instead of a call of 10 or 15 participants joining from home, you had a meeting between two boardrooms: on one side of the call was the team at Scio, and on the other, our counterparts at the client’s office. Everyone gave their status and comments, and once we finished, further exchanges were done by email or phone calls. We canceled several phone lines last year, by the way, when we realized they hadn’t been used in years. In the beginning, we needed lots of lines for every team to keep in touch with their respective clients, but now Zoom, Hangouts, Microsoft Teams, and Slack offer plenty of more convenient options to do so. Shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic, this was still our collaboration dynamic, with two meeting rooms giving their respective status, and anyone working from home for the day joining the call.
Developer working remotely on a laptop during a video call, showing Scio’s bilingual nearshore collaboration with U.S. tech teams.
Scio’s remote-ready developers in Mexico work seamlessly with U.S. teams thanks to strong English skills and cultural alignment.
But now that everyone is working remotely, barriers have started to diminish, both in culture and in attitude. In the US you are probably already working with people in California, Texas, or New York, so working with someone in Mexico doesn’t feel different, as long as the language skills of the person are good. The newer generations of developers and engineers have a better level of English now than just a few years ago. Maybe because there are more opportunities to get acquainted with the language; earlier you had to go to very specific stores to get books and other materials in English, which wasn’t cheap, and without stuff like YouTube and Netflix, the type of content you could get to practice was very limited. This evolution of the software developers, when you are not limited to local options as long as you have the necessary skills to collaborate with a remote team, is very notable. The people we used to hire outside of Morelia were the ones willing to move here, and the process of seeking out people to explicitly be remote collaborators was gradual until we developed a whole process to assess which ones fit Scio’s culture the best.
Team meeting in a bright office, illustrating the importance of soft skills in Scio’s nearshore software development teams for U.S. companies.
At Scio, strong communication and collaboration skills are as valuable as technical expertise when working with U.S. clients.

Soft skills: The key to a good team

In that sense, I think soft skills will have more weight in the long run than purely technical skills. Someone with an average technical level, but who is proactive, knows how to communicate, and can identify priorities is someone who brings more value to a team than a technology wizard that doesn’t play along and keeps themself isolated, or assumes stuff instead of validating it. You would think social skills are irrelevant for someone working remotely when they are actually critical to collaborate effectively. Some people prefer to not interact with others and would rather just get instructions on what to do, but this only works for well-defined tasks in which it is very clear what you are trying to accomplish. I know this is the optimal way to collaborate for those developers who are less interested in social aspects, but it doesn’t work for projects that require innovation, creativity, and problem solving, with complex workflows involving tons of people whose input is important at every step. This is why, I think the “introvert programmer” stereotype is something of a myth, at least nowadays. This profession is moving towards a place where the most valuable persons are the ones with a well-rounded profile, capable of communicating with the business sponsors, his or her coworkers, and final users, and not only those who are super-gifted in their programming skills. People in software, as a whole, are becoming more versatile, and the ones capable of connecting are going to be more visible and be considered more valuable, getting more opportunities in their careers. This is what I can say about the path that the people at Scio have followed so far. From now on, collaboration is a priority because remote work makes it more important than ever, and motivating and stimulating this collaboration, indeed this cohesion, is what will differentiate good Nearshore companies from the best ones.
Better Interviews, Smarter Augmentation: Reducing Interview Risks When Outsourcing to LatAm Partners 

Better Interviews, Smarter Augmentation: Reducing Interview Risks When Outsourcing to LatAm Partners 

High-Performance Collaboration, Outsourced Engineering Team, Product Development, Scio, Successful Outsourcing, Team Performance

By Rod Aburto
Smiling candidate during a nearshore technical interview, representing staff augmentation from Latin America

Introduction

When you’re a Software Development Manager trying to grow a team, interviews are your last line of defense—and often your first real contact with a developer your outsourcing partner claims is “a perfect fit.” But too often, that fit falls apart the moment the Zoom call starts.

Over my years helping US-based teams scale with nearshore engineers from Latin America, I’ve heard the same concerns time and again:

  • “The resume looked great, but the candidate couldn’t explain their past work.”
  • “We had a hard time understanding each other.”
  • “They said they were Agile, but couldn’t describe a sprint.”
  • “This feels like body shopping.”

These are outsourcing concerns that go far beyond technology—they’re about trust, alignment, and interview quality. And they’re absolutely valid.

So how do we fix it?

In this post, I want to share the perspective I’ve gained at Scio Consulting working with companies who expect more than warm bodies. I’ll cover:

  • The core risks managers face when interviewing external candidates
  • Why staff augmentation from LatAm has unique advantages—and challenges
  • What better interviews look like
  • And how a trusted partner can dramatically reduce your risk

The Problem with Interviews in Staff Augmentation

Let’s get one thing out of the way: interviews are already hard. You’re juggling schedules, context-switching out of your sprint, and trying to assess someone’s ability to write clean code, communicate clearly, and be a positive force on your team—all in 45 minutes.
Now layer on:

  • Cultural or language mismatches
  • Unclear expectations about the role
  • External recruiters who barely understand your product
  • Inflated resumes or coached responses
  • Vendors who disappear after sending over candidates

It’s no wonder so many Software Development Managers tell me they’ve “been burned” by augmentation before.

In short, the outsourcing concern here is calibration. Are we speaking the same language? Are we aligned on expectations? Are you trying to make a commission, or do you care if this person thrives on my team?

Single standout block among many, symbolizing the importance of identifying the right developer in nearshore interviews
Effective interviews help distinguish the right candidate—not just a good résumé.

Why Interviews with Nearshore Teams Require a Different Approach

In theory, staff augmentation in LatAm solves many pain points:

  • Time zone alignment
  • Lower costs than US-based engineers
  • Cultural overlap and strong English proficiency
  • Faster ramp-up times

But in practice, those benefits only come after you’ve found and validated the right people.

And validation starts with—you guessed it—interviews.

That’s where many vendors drop the ball. They treat interviews as the client’s job alone, offering up semi-qualified candidates, crossing their fingers, and moving on to the next request if it doesn’t work out.

But this model creates interview fatigue, wastes time, and damages trust. You don’t want 10 “maybes.” You want 2 “hell yes” candidates.

What “Better Interviews” Actually Mean

If I had to define what “better interviews” look like in the context of nearshore staff augmentation from LatAm, it would be this:

A better interview is a conversation between a well-prepared client and a highly-aligned candidate, facilitated by a partner who’s done their homework.

Let’s break that down.

1. Better interviews start before the interview

A trusted partner doesn’t just toss resumes over the fence. They:

  • Take time to understand your tech stack and team dynamics
  • Align on what success looks like for the role
  • Conduct internal pre-interviews with behavioral and technical checkpoints
  • Involve currently assigned team members in the screening
  • Filter out candidates who aren’t a real fit—before you ever see them

At Scio, we often say we “interview for you, not just with you.” That means using your values, your stack, your expectations—not just a generic checklist.

2. Candidates are calibrated, not coached

Some vendors train candidates to “get through” your interview. We calibrate them so they can connect with your team. That means:

  • Helping them understand your product
  • Providing context on your engineering culture
  • Practicing communication in English
  • Making sure they can explain their experience clearly and honestly

This isn’t hand-holding—it’s leveling the playing field so the interview is about fit, not miscommunication.

3. There’s accountability after the call

Here’s a secret: a good partner wants your feedback, even when it’s negative.

If a candidate misses the mark, we want to know:

  • Where did the interview go off-track?
  • Was it a skill mismatch or a soft skill issue?
  • How can we improve the next match?

We treat every interview as a feedback loop, not a transaction.

Laptop screen with profile icons and checkmarks, symbolizing interview screening and candidate selection in nearshore outsourcing
At Scio, we treat interviews as a discovery process—not just a filter.

How Scio Minimizes Interview Risks for US Clients

When I work with our client partners, we do a lot of things differently. Here’s how Scio tackles interview-related outsourcing concerns:

Deep Discovery & Role Definition

Before we ever share a CV, we spend time with the hiring manager understanding

  • Must-have vs nice-to-have skills
  • Day-to-day responsibilities
  • Team structure and rituals
  • Communication style and collaboration norms

This means we don’t waste your time with “maybe” candidates.

Developer Calibration Program

Every developer we propose goes through:

  • English fluency screening
  • Behavioral interviews focused on problem-solving and proactivity
  • Technical evaluations mapped to your tech stack

This helps ensure they’re interview-ready—and team-ready.

Post-Interview Follow-Up

We schedule debriefs after each interview to understand:

  • What worked
  • What didn’t
  • What to adjust

It’s not about pushing candidates—it’s about building trust.

The “Trusted Partner” Difference

When I hear managers say, “This candidate felt different,” it’s not just about skills. It’s because the whole process felt different.

They weren’t wasting time sifting through noise.
They weren’t struggling to connect over Zoom.
They weren’t doing the vendor’s job for them.

They were working with a trusted partner who brought them ready-to-interview developers—not just names in a database.

That’s what makes staff augmentation in LatAm work long-term. Not just lower costs. Not just shared time zones. But shared standards, ownership, and care.

Final Thoughts: It’s Not Just the Interview. It’s the Intent.

If you’re augmenting your team from Latin America—or anywhere—the interview is your moment of truth. Don’t let it be your biggest risk.

A better partner will give you:

  • Fewer but stronger candidates
  • Insight, not guesswork
  • A process that gets better over time
  • And developers who shine in interviews because they’re the real deal

At Scio, we don’t just want to make interviews easier. We want to make them meaningful—the start of a relationship, not a gamble.

Because when interviews go right, everything that follows gets better too.

Want to Learn More?

If you’re facing outsourcing concerns and want to work with a trusted partner focused on better interviews and high-performing staff augmentation in LatAm, let’s connect.

We’d love to show you what a better process—and a better partnership—really looks like.

Rod Aburto

Rod Aburto

Nearshore Staffing Expert

Strategic Nearshoring for Tech Companies: Luis Aburto’s Vision for Outcomes-Driven Partnerships

Strategic Nearshoring for Tech Companies: Luis Aburto’s Vision for Outcomes-Driven Partnerships

Scio, Strategic Digital Nearshoring

Written by: Luis Aburto – 

Strategic Nearshoring for Tech Companies: Luis Aburto’s Vision for Outcomes-Driven Partnerships

The Software Development leaders of tech companies are constantly searching for ways to scale their engineering teams, hit aggressive product development milestones, and deliver innovation more efficiently. While outsourcing has traditionally been a common solution, many tech companies are finding that simple transactional relationships with outsourcing providers fall short of delivering the long-term results they need.

For Luis Aburto, CEO of Scio, the answer lies in strategic nearshoring and a shift toward outcomes-driven partnerships. Scio, a software development company based in Mexico, leverages nearshoring to help North American tech companies scale their teams with real-time collaboration, cultural alignment, and cost efficiency.

In this interview, John Suvanto, a renowned Vistage Chair in Dallas, TX and Luis’ Executive Coach, explores how Scio’s Outcomes-Driven Engagement Model and its focus on business and cultural alignment are reshaping the way tech companies approach partnerships. Together, they dive into how Scio is helping companies achieve measurable business outcomes, improve engineering productivity, and meet product roadmap goals more effectively through long-term collaboration.

Interview

John Suvanto (Chair, Vistage Dallas):

Luis, it’s great to sit down with you again. As someone who’s watched your journey for several years, I’ve been particularly impressed with how Scio has developed its Outcomes-Driven Engagement Model. For our readers, could you start by introducing Scio and sharing a bit about the philosophy behind this model?

Luis Aburto (CEO, Scio):

Thanks, John. I’m happy to be here and to talk about our approach. Scio is a software development company based in Austin, TX that leverages talent in Mexico and other countries in Latin America to deliver custom technology solutions to North American clients. So, one of the key aspects of our business model is nearshoring—we’re in the same or similar time zones as our clients, which allows for real-time collaboration, faster decision-making, and better cultural alignment, all while keeping costs competitive.

As we’ve grown, we recognized that the traditional transactional outsourcing model wasn’t enough to truly support our clients’ needs—especially tech or tech-enabled companies that are scaling rapidly or trying to hit aggressive product development goals. That’s where our Outcomes-Driven Engagement Model comes in. Instead of just delivering a service and moving on, we partner with our clients to align our work with their business outcomes, focusing on achieving real, measurable results.

John Suvanto:

I think that’s an important distinction. Many companies that work with external development teams are used to a time and materials or a deliverables-based approach, but you’ve shifted the conversation to outcomes, which requires a much deeper partnership. How does this shift impact the way you engage with your clients?

Luis Aburto:

It fundamentally changes the relationship. In a typical transactional model, success is measured by completing tasks—delivering features, closing out tickets, or meeting deadlines. But these outputs don’t always lead to real business impact. Our model is different because we’re not just focused on what we’re delivering today; we’re focused on what that delivery is achieving in the long term.

From the very beginning of an engagement, we sit down with our clients to define outcomes that are aligned with their business objectives. This could be improving product development cycles, increasing productivity in their engineering teams, or hitting specific product roadmap milestones. We commit to those outcomes and share accountability for achieving them. It’s a deeper partnership where both sides are fully invested in long-term success.

John Suvanto:

And that level of shared accountability must build a great deal of trust with your clients. You’re essentially aligning your own success with theirs. How do you measure this success, especially when you’re focusing on long-term outcomes?

Luis Aburto:

Exactly, John. Trust is a key component of this model, and shared accountability is at the heart of it. We establish key performance indicators (KPIs) that reflect the outcomes we’ve agreed on. These KPIs aren’t just about completing tasks—they’re about the business impact. For example, if a client’s goal is to increase development velocity, we’ll measure not just how many features we’re delivering, but whether those features are helping the client meet their product roadmap milestones more efficiently.

We also conduct regular reviews to ensure that we’re on track, and we adapt as needed. This level of flexibility is crucial because business needs evolve. What we’re focused on at the start of the partnership might change as the client’s product or market situation shifts. Our model is designed to be adaptive, ensuring that we’re always aligned with their priorities.

John Suvanto:

That adaptability is essential, especially in tech where things can change quickly. Now, Scio operates using a nearshoring model, which I know is a big part of your value proposition. Can you explain how nearshoring fits into this Outcomes-Driven Engagement Model and how it benefits your tech clients?

Luis Aburto:

Nearshoring is a huge advantage for us and for our clients. Having our team members based in Mexico and throughout Latin America, and serving clients primarily in North America, we’re working in similar time zones, which makes real-time collaboration much easier than with traditional offshore teams. Our clients don’t have to deal with significant time delays—they can have a meeting with our development team during their business hours and get immediate responses. This improves communication, speeds up decision-making, and ultimately makes the development process more efficient.

In addition, the cultural alignment we have with our clients plays a big role in building trust and collaboration. There’s a better understanding of business practices, expectations, and workflows, which reduces friction. But at the same time, our nearshoring model allows for cost efficiencies compared to working with onshore teams, so our clients are getting the best of both worlds—quality and affordability.

This combination of nearshoring and our Outcomes-Driven Engagement Model allows us to be a true partner, embedded in the day-to-day processes of our clients’ engineering teams, helping them increase productivity and hit their product roadmap milestones faster and more predictably.

John Suvanto:

It sounds like your model doesn’t just focus on reducing costs but also on improving efficiency and scaling teams to meet business needs. For established tech companies or fast-growing startups, this must be very valuable. How do you ensure that this partnership remains scalable as the client’s business grows?

Luis Aburto:

Scalability is something we build into our engagements from the start. Tech companies, especially those that are experiencing rapid growth, need a development partner that can scale with them. With our nearshore model, we can quickly ramp up or adjust the size of the team based on the client’s needs. Because we’re working in close alignment with their internal teams, we can seamlessly integrate and expand without the growing pains that typically come with bringing in new resources.

Moreover, because we’re focused on outcomes and not just tasks, we’re always aligning our efforts with the client’s evolving goals. As their product grows or their market conditions change, we adapt to ensure that the partnership continues to deliver the results they need. This long-term focus allows us to grow with our clients, providing consistent, reliable support that evolves as their business does.

John Suvanto:

You mentioned cultural alignment as one of the advantages of nearshoring, and I’d like to dive deeper into that. For companies building long-term partnerships, cultural fit often determines the success of those relationships. How does Scio approach cultural alignment with your clients, and why do you think it’s so critical?

Luis Aburto:

Cultural alignment is one of the most important factors in ensuring a successful partnership, especially for long-term engagements. It goes beyond language or time zone—it’s about understanding how our clients operate, their values, and the expectations they set for their teams and their projects.

At Scio, we prioritize cultural alignment from the very beginning of our partnerships. Before we even start a project, we make an effort to really understand the business culture of our client. Are they highly collaborative? Do they prefer structured, process-driven work? What are their key priorities in terms of innovation, quality, or speed? Understanding these elements helps us better integrate with their internal teams. It’s not just about technical expertise, but about how we work together on a day-to-day basis.

This is where nearshoring really makes a difference. With our teams based in Mexico and LatAm, we share similar cultural norms with our US-based clients, which makes it easier to build rapport, communicate effectively, and establish a shared sense of purpose. We’re able to adapt quickly to the work environment and company culture of our clients, which minimizes friction and enhances collaboration.

John Suvanto:

That makes a lot of sense. Having cultural alignment must lead to smoother communication and better problem-solving since both teams are on the same page. How have you seen this play out in your engagements?

Luis Aburto:

We’ve seen it have a significant impact. For example, when teams are aligned culturally, there’s a level of trust and mutual respect that naturally develops. This means that when challenges arise—and they always do in software development—our clients know that we’re working with them, not just for them. We’re able to tackle problems more effectively because we’re communicating openly and in real-time, without the barriers that can come with different time zones or cultural differences.

In one particular case, we had a client who was scaling their product rapidly. Because we had established such a strong cultural fit with their internal teams, they felt confident leaning on us not just to execute development tasks but to co-create solutions. We were able to step in as a true partner, bringing ideas to the table that aligned with their product vision, and it allowed us to deliver value beyond what was initially scoped.

John Suvanto:

So that level of alignment becomes a foundation for innovation and collaboration. It sounds like it enables you to be more proactive in your role as a partner.

Luis Aburto:

Exactly. When there’s strong cultural alignment, we’re not just following instructions—we’re actively contributing to the client’s success. We understand their strategic goals, and that enables us to offer insights, suggest improvements, and even foresee potential challenges before they become problems. This is especially important for tech companies that need their development teams to move quickly and efficiently. When everyone is aligned, both technically and culturally, things just flow better.

John Suvanto:

It’s clear that Scio is positioning itself as more than just a service provider. You’re really becoming a strategic partner for your clients, especially in helping them navigate the complexities of scaling their product development efficiently. How do you approach building that long-term relationship with your clients?

Luis Aburto:

Our approach is centered around creating mutual value. From the outset, we look at the client’s long-term vision and figure out how we can help them achieve their most important objectives—not just for today, but as they grow. We’re constantly looking for ways to optimize processes, introduce innovations, and improve the efficiency of their engineering teams. By focusing on outcomes and delivering consistent value, we build a deep level of trust over time.
Additionally, because we’re working with high-growth tech companies, we understand that their needs will evolve. We make sure our teams are flexible, scalable, and always ready to pivot to meet new challenges. Our model allows us to stay agile while maintaining a clear focus on driving the results that matter most to the client.

John Suvanto:

That long-term focus is something many companies struggle with—keeping both the immediate needs and the future goals in balance. Luis, it’s been great to see how Scio is helping clients achieve that balance through strategic digital nearshoring and your Outcomes-Driven Engagement Model. As we close, what advice would you give to tech leaders who are considering adopting this kind of partnership approach?

Luis Aburto:

The most important thing is to start by thinking about what success looks like for your business—not just in terms of deliverables, but in terms of business impact. What outcomes do you need to achieve? Once you have a clear vision of that, find a partner who shares your commitment to those outcomes and is willing to share accountability for achieving them. Look for partners who are adaptable, aligned with your values, and able to scale with your needs. That’s what we strive to do at Scio, and it’s what makes these partnerships successful in the long run.

John Suvanto:

Luis, thank you for sharing your insights. It’s clear that Scio is bringing a lot of value to the table for tech companies looking to scale efficiently and achieve long-term success.

Luis Aburto:

Thank you, John. It’s always great to have these discussions, and I appreciate the opportunity to share more about our approach.

Building Your Dream Team: In-House vs. Nearshore Expansion

Building Your Dream Team: In-House vs. Nearshore Expansion

Nearshore, Scio, Software Development, Workspace

In the fast-paced and competitive landscape of the software development industry, assembling a high-performing team is critical for success. As business decision-makers, you understand that the talent you bring on board can make or break the trajectory of a product. So, the daily question that software leaders face is whether to build an in-house team or explore the advantages of outside help. This strategic choice requires careful consideration, weighing the benefits of proximity against the advantages of a globalized workforce.

Yet, recent industry trends underscore the growing popularity of nearshore software engineering services. According to recent reports, 80% of U.S.-based companies are considering nearshore teams instead of in-house counterparts. The ability to tap into a diverse talent pool, fostered by geographical proximity and cultural alignment, has become a key driver for organizations seeking to optimize their software development processes.

As Mexico emerges as a prominent nearshore destination, it’s essential to delve into the specific advantages it offers. With a burgeoning tech ecosystem and a rapidly expanding pool of skilled professionals, Mexico has positioned itself as a prime location for nearshore expansion. A recent study by Deloitte revealed that 65% of organizations that opted for nearshoring in Mexico experienced a notable improvement in development speed, leading to faster time-to-market for their products.

In this article, we will explore the considerations that decision-makers need to weigh when deciding between in-house and nearshore expansion, with a focus on the unique benefits that Scio brings to the table. By the end, you’ll be equipped with the insights needed to make an informed decision that aligns with your company’s goals and ensures the construction of your dream software development team.

The Cost Factor of In-House Teams vs. Nearshoring

Cost considerations play a pivotal role in the decision-making process when it comes to expanding your software development team. As decision-makers, understanding the financial implications of building an in-house team versus engaging in a nearshore partnership is crucial for optimizing budgetary resources.

In-House Talent

Building an in-house development team often comes with significant upfront and ongoing costs. The expenses associated with recruitment, onboarding, office space, and equipment can quickly accumulate. According to a report by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), the average cost per hire in the United States alone is approximately $4,000, not accounting for additional expenses related to training and integration.

Moreover, the need for competitive salaries and benefits to attract and retain top-tier talent can strain budgets. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employee compensation represents a substantial portion of operational expenses, with salary and benefits accounting for approximately 70% of total labor costs.

Nearshore Partnerships

In contrast, nearshore software engineering services offer a cost-effective alternative. Leveraging talent from countries like Mexico allows organizations to tap into skilled professionals at a fraction of the cost compared to many developed nations. Additionally, nearshore partnerships often come with streamlined onboarding processes, reducing the time and resources required for team integration. The collaborative time zone overlap between Mexico and North America facilitates efficient communication, contributing to increased productivity and minimizing project delays.

Infrastructure and Overhead Costs

Beyond personnel expenses, nearshore partnerships alleviate the need for substantial infrastructure investments. Companies can avoid the capital outlay associated with setting up and maintaining an in-house IT infrastructure, including servers, software licenses, and security measures. This is particularly relevant given the rapid advancements in technology, where outsourcing allows organizations to leverage cutting-edge tools without the burden of continuous investments.

In other words, while in-house talent may offer proximity and control, the financial benefits of nearshore partnerships, particularly in countries like Mexico, cannot be ignored. The cost-effectiveness of engaging skilled professionals at a lower overall expense, coupled with the strategic advantages of nearshore collaboration, makes it a compelling option for organizations seeking to optimize their software development capabilities.

Advantages of Building a Nearshore Dream Team

  1. Labor Cost Advantages: Nearshore teams offer significant financial benefits, particularly in terms of labor costs, when compared to developed countries. In nearshore destinations like Mexico, skilled professionals are available at a fraction of the labor costs incurred in more expensive regions. This cost disparity enables companies to access top-tier talent without the financial burden associated with high labor expenses. This substantial cost advantage significantly contributes to the overall affordability of nearshore partnerships.
  1. Infrastructure Expenses: Establishing and maintaining an in-house development team involves substantial infrastructure expenses. Companies need to invest in office space, IT infrastructure, software licenses, and other facilities, adding to the overall operational costs. In contrast, nearshore teams operate in environments with lower overhead expenses. For example, Mexico has developed a robust tech ecosystem with state-of-the-art facilities and connectivity. Leveraging this pre-existing infrastructure allows organizations to focus their financial resources on core development activities rather than infrastructure setup and maintenance.
  1. Training Costs: Training and skill development are ongoing requirements in the dynamic field of software development. In-house teams may require substantial investments in training programs to keep their skills up-to-date with evolving technologies. Additionally, the time and resources spent on training can temporarily impact productivity. Nearshore teams often come with a well-trained and adaptable talent pool. The result is a workforce that is already equipped with relevant skills, reducing the need for extensive training programs and minimizing disruptions to project timelines.
  1. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO): When considering salary disparities, infrastructure expenses, and training costs collectively, the concept of Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) becomes paramount. TCO provides a holistic view of the overall costs associated with maintaining a software development team. Nearshore teams, by offering lower salaries, leveraging existing infrastructure, and providing a skilled workforce, contribute to a significantly lower TCO compared to in-house teams. 

Nearshore teams present a compelling business case by delivering high-quality work at a fraction of the price. The combination of lower salary disparities, reduced infrastructure expenses, and minimized training costs positions nearshore partnerships as a cost-effective solution for organizations looking to achieve their software development objectives without compromising on quality.

Choosing the Scio Advantage

When faced with the critical decision of building a software development dream team, the choice between in-house and nearshore expansion demands careful consideration. As the software development landscape evolves, the advantages of nearshore partnerships emerge as a clear winner for organizations seeking to optimize their capabilities. However, choosing the ideal partner to bring a product to fruition is not to be taken lightly.

Scio Consulting stands out as the best option for building a nearshore dream team for your software development needs. With 21 years of experience in the tech ecosystem of Mexico, we offer access to a wide pool of skilled professionals ready to seamlessly blend with your internal processes. A streamlined onboarding process, a collaborative time zone overlap with North America, the flexibility to adapt to any tech environment, and our partnering approach to product development make Scio Consulting your strategic partner.

In essence, we offer a holistic solution that combines financial advantages with high-quality work, allowing organizations to allocate resources strategically and focus on critical business priorities such as innovation and research and development. When it comes to constructing your dream software team, Scio’s nearshore software engineering services expertise provides a winning formula for success in the fast-paced landscape of the modern software development industry.

Leading from Both Sides of the Keyboard: When CTOs Hold the Purse Strings

Leading from Both Sides of the Keyboard: When CTOs Hold the Purse Strings

Entrepreneurship, Nearshore, Scio, Software Development

For most software leaders, navigating the world of technology is already a demanding feat. But for a select few, the challenge extends beyond lines of code and elegant algorithms. These are the CTOs who also wear the CEO hat, balancing technical vision with the realities of financial stewardship. They’re a rare breed, and their unique perspective offers valuable insights for both aspiring leaders and those seeking the right nearshore development partner.

For a CTO-CEO, it’s a constant dance between two worlds. Their days are a blend of crafting robust architectures and scrutinizing budgets. Imagine building the future one algorithm at a time, while keeping a keen eye on the bottom line. It’s a high-wire act, demanding both meticulous planning and a healthy dose of calculated risk.

But when done right, the synergy is undeniable. Technical agility meets financial prudence in a potent mix. Decisions become laser-focused, aligning development goals with budgetary constraints. The CEO’s deep understanding of technology fosters empathy with teams, leading to a collaborative and efficient environment. Innovation flourishes when the architect of the code also holds the keys to the castle.

Think of Microsoft’s remarkable resurgence under Satya Nadella’s leadership. His ascent from software engineer to CEO wasn’t just a climb up the corporate ladder; it was a strategic move that fueled Microsoft’s transformation. Nadella’s fluency in both code and commerce allowed him to see the immense potential of cloud computing and AI, guiding the company to refocus its efforts and reclaim its position as a tech leader. His story is a testament to the power of having a CEO who speaks the language of both engineers and investors.

Collaborative Efficiency

Collaborative Efficiency

Imagine software development teams where code whispers directly to the CEO’s ear, where budgets aren’t just spreadsheets but blueprints for innovation. Companies with Brain CTO-CEOs, according to industry reports and internal case studies, report a remarkable 30% increase in employee engagement among engineering teams. Why? Improved communication bridges the gap between developers and leadership, fostering mutual understanding and trust. It’s like having a translator who speaks both the language of code and the dialect of the boardroom, ensuring everyone is on the same page throughout the development journey. This enhanced collaboration reduces friction, quicker decision-making, and a shared sense of purpose, ultimately leading to a happier, more productive workforce.

Faster Time-to-Market

In today’s hyper-competitive landscape, speed is king. Studies like the Harvard Business Review study highlight the advantage of dual-focused leadership. Companies with leaders who juggle code and cash are 45% more likely to successfully launch new products on time and within budget. No more missed deadlines or ballooning costs! The CTO-CEO’s understanding of both technical feasibility and financial constraints becomes a potent weapon, guiding teams to hit the market not just with groundbreaking ideas, but also with optimal timing and financial prudence.

Navigating the Challenges

Navigating the Challenges

The journey for CTO-CEOs is one of constant balancing. They must keep pushing for innovation while ensuring financial stability. It’s not always smooth sailing, and there are tough decisions to be made along the way.

For example, investing in tomorrow’s AI breakthrough might conflict with the need to optimize existing infrastructure today. And while exciting new technologies are tempting, staying within budget and resource constraints is crucial. Finding the right balance can be challenging, requiring careful consideration to avoid prioritizing innovation at the expense of financial responsibility.

Here are some specific balancing acts CTO-CEOs face:

  • Avoiding «shiny object syndrome»: It’s important to evaluate if the latest tech trend aligns with long-term goals before pursuing it.
  • Making smart «build vs. buy» decisions: Choosing between internal development and external solutions requires careful weighing of cost and benefits.
  • Embracing the «innovation paradox»: Breakthroughs are important, but so are stability and reliability in existing systems.
  • Solving the «people puzzle»: Finding talent with both cutting-edge skills and operational efficiency is key.

These are just a few of the challenges CTO-CEOs navigate. Understanding these complexities is crucial for steering their companies toward sustainable growth.

Scio: Partnering for Sustainable Growth with a CEO-CTO Mindset

Scio Partnering for Sustainable Growth with a CEO-CTO Mindset

We understand the unique challenges of navigating technology and business as a CTO-CEO. That’s because our leadership embodies this very perspective. Our CEO, Luis Aburto, is not just a seasoned executive; he’s also a passionate engineer at heart.

This dual perspective is the cornerstone of Scio’s approach. We’ve seen firsthand how combining technical brilliance with strategic financial foresight unlocks the potential for stable growth, smart innovation, and empowered teams. We’re not about quick fixes or fleeting trends; we’re about building long-lasting success alongside you.

Luis Aburto’s passion for both software development and entrepreneurship is woven into the very fabric of Scio. He built this company with a singular mission: to empower tech companies to bring their software ideas to life, faster and better. This deep understanding of your world informs everything we do.

That means:

  • Finding the right talent: We handpick top-tier tech professionals in Mexico and Latin America, meticulously vetted for both technical excellence and cultural fit.
  • Managing costs effectively: We leverage our experience and global resources to optimize your project pipelines and maximize your budget impact.
  • Creating a thriving tech environment: We foster a collaborative culture where your teams feel empowered to innovate and build amazing things.

Scio isn’t just a team of consultants; we’re your strategic partner, guided by the CEO-CTO mindset of Luis Aburto. We walk alongside you, understanding your unique needs, budget realities, and vision for the future. Together, we’ll turn your passion for technology into sustainable growth, one line of code at a time.

Together We Build: The CTO-CEO’s Collaborative Journey

Together We Build The CTO-CEO's Collaborative Journey

The journey of the CTO-CEO is rarely a solo endeavor. It’s a shared journey fueled by the combined efforts of engineers, developers, and countless others. It’s a reminder that even the sharpest minds need a team to translate ideas into reality. And perhaps that’s the true strength of the CTO-CEO: to foster an environment where diverse skills come together in a collaborative dance, building something bigger than themselves.

As Nicholas Negroponte wisely said, «Technology alone solves nothing. It’s the way we use it that matters.» The CTO-CEO understands this deeply. In their hands, technology isn’t just lines of code; it’s a bridge connecting people, a springboard for growth, and a canvas for shaping a better future. Their legacy isn’t just the product they deliver, but the way they unite a group of talented individuals towards a shared goal.

Moving forward, let’s remember that the key to unlocking technology’s true potential lies not just in individual brilliance, but in working together. Let’s be inspired by the CTO-CEO who encourages collaboration, not competition, and celebrates the harmony that arises when diverse voices join forces. Together, we can build a brighter future, united in strategy, and empowered to achieve.