The type of engineer we're looking for is almost nonexistent in Latin America

By Lisbeth Peña, HR Management & Recruitment at Telecom District.

Telecom District’s business model relies on very unique profiles. We need a specific type of network engineer, and that profile is harder to find than it seems. The reason isn’t a lack of talent in Latin America (there’s plenty); it’s that most large operators train engineers for a role different from the one we need. Here’s the profile, how we evaluate it, and why our process differs from that of a traditional operator.

The model dictates the profile

Every operational model is based on an implicit theory about who sustains it. In a large enterprise operator with large teams, the theory is that seniority is accumulated in tiers and that critical engineering tasks are distributed among many people. When the operator is very small, the theory changes completely: each person operates using their own judgment and is responsible for a part of the operation from start to finish.

That shift in philosophy is what sets Telecom District’s hiring process apart. We aren’t looking for the engineer with the most technical skills on paper. We’re looking for someone who has learned to make decisions without two layers of management above them, who knows how to debug without a script, and who sees taking on responsibility for an enterprise client as part of the role’s appeal—not as a burden.

How We Evaluate: The Technical Floor Is Non-Negotiable

An engineer who joins Telecom District typically meets four criteria.

The first is technical: a valid CCNP Service Provider or JNCIP-SP certification. The second is experience-based: at least four years of experience operating an enterprise network at a senior telecommunications provider or systems integrator, with demonstrable field and on-call hours; lab hours alone are not sufficient. The third is judgment-based: the ability to troubleshoot a production incident without a prescriptive runbook, relying on telemetry, live documentation, and one’s own experience.

The fourth is cultural, and it carries the most weight in the interview: we look for people who are inclined to take ownership of their processes. In the interview, we ask the candidate to describe the last major operational decision they made under pressure: what they evaluated, what they prioritized, and what they would do differently. Answers that seek to shift responsibility to the organization (“I consulted with my supervisor”) stand out immediately from those that take ownership of the decision (“I decided on X because the data pointed to Y, and I signed off on the ticket”). It’s not a trick question; it’s the kind of question that truly tells us whether someone will be a good fit here.

We post our current job openings with the required certifications and prior experience explicitly listed so that the screening process begins before the first call—not after.

Why We Don't Use Traditional Processes

At a large company, an engineer can spend years performing a limited role within a pipeline that others designed: they do their part well, but rarely see the big picture. At Telecom District, a senior engineer owns their enterprise clients, participates in architectural decisions for new expansions, and signs off on their own post-mortems. It’s the difference between being a songwriter and being a session musician. Both paths are valid, but they only work with different processes. We couldn’t just copy a traditional carrier’s hiring process and expect to find people who want to be songwriters.

That's why there isn't a crisis response team for every incident, no approval committee for every minor architectural decision, and no generic soft-skills interviews: there's a real technical conversation with a real engineer from the team about a real problem.

Retention: What We've Learned in Nearly a Decade

Telecom District has been an integrator for nearly a decade and an operator for three. That’s enough experience to have gained some honest insights.

The first lesson we’ve learned is that the main reason for leaving is incompatibility with the accountability model—it’s almost never the salary. Engineers who accepted the position because of an attractive compensation package but who, deep down, preferred a more hands-on, less decision-making role tend to leave within the first 24 months. This is a lesson we’ve learned through the process. Assessing cultural fit was the area that needed improvement, and now we invest more time in that before moving forward with a formal job offer.

The second lesson is that the best way to retain a strong senior engineer is to expand their scope of responsibility before they even ask for it. When someone is ready for more and the organization is slow to recognize it, the window of opportunity to retain them closes quickly. It sounds obvious; in practice, it requires frequent career conversations, not just an annual review.

Lesson Three: Since we’re a small team, every hiring decision has a magnified impact. A bad fit in a team of twenty people costs much more—in terms of time and culture—than a bad fit in a team of one hundred. That’s why we’d rather take more time and hire better.

If you're interested in a position like this

We currently have an opening for a network engineer with a valid CCNP Data Center certification, based in Mexico City and working in a hybrid model. The job details, specific responsibilities, and application process are available on our careers page.

Lisbeth Peña
HR Management & Recruitment · Telecom District
She oversees the company's technical recruitment and HR administration.