With AI and big tech layoffs, engineering organizations have been put under a microscope like never before. Engineering leaders need to adapt to this new normal.
While I agree that "creating a culture" was top-of-mind for CTO's in the "fatty years", I think there is a very important point that is not mentioned here. Hiring is a way of gaining power within an org. It is the prime and proven way to do exactly the "politics" the CTOs apparently "weren't doing enough of". What if we flip the idea here to "instead of trying to obtain influence and inflate headcount, CTOs should focus on building product and delivering value"? The "can you just use NORMAL WORDS" comment is a strange aside, and showing the person who wrote it in a very negative light. I know plenty of engineers who can use "normal worlds" alright, should anyone bother to actually listen. But the trend of the "fatty" years would be to prevent engineers from speaking to anyone because there was a thick (and thickening) layer of management which was laser-focused on usurping access to stakeholders.
Personally, I think "the big shrink" will likely do very well by CTOs who can get back into the building mindset and the experienced engineers who will suddenly find themselves in a position where there is no insulating layer of middle management between them and the C-suite. Time will tell.
I'd challenge your perception that "politics" = growing headcount.
Growing headcount can help further your perception in an org, but it's - frankly - the most primal and inelegant way. The fact that so many eng leaders think it is THE way is telling.
The most influential product orgs also tend to be the leanest. Another example is the CFO office. You don't need headcount to show power. In fact, bloated teams fear these smaller orgs because their very existence calls them out on their bullshit.
There are certainly times where it's appropriate for CTOs to be builders in early stages. But your primary objective as an executive is to watch out for the business as a whole, bring others along, and provide aircover for your team. If you don't want to do that - totally cool. There are tons of founding engineer or IC roles out there for you. But you don't get to take up the mantle of leadership without the actual leadership part.
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion! Dms are also always open.
I think this mistakes a short term correction for a long term trend.
Current AI models aren't nearly good enough to even approximate a junior-junior developer. Let alone compensating for not-having top talent.
On the contrary, AI is tremendously useful for many low-skilled repetitive tasks, such as help center work. In my mind the AI revolution people dream about is still at least 20 years away. And could turn out much like Fusion turns out to be always 10 years away.
Regardless, corrections are normal things in a market. It doesn't invalidate the trend though. I predict the next five years we will see the IT job market not only recover, but boom. Precisely because the world is made of software.
The only genuine long term risks are wars and an increased frequency in disasters.
IMO I don't think there is a long-term where FAANG companies will be paying $350k salaries en-masse to hundreds of thousands of engineers anymore - that in itself is seismic. I say this as someone bullish on engineering as a function. I'm optimistic that engineering won't shrink, but just become more accessible to sectors like non-profits/arts/etc without FAANG inflating salaries.
Regardless, I think just the promise of AI is enough to be wildly disruptive. Even if it's ACTUALLY no good, greedy boards or over-optimistic execs might still eliminate jobs if they BELIEVE it's good enough. Eng leaders need to be able to justify their teams and clearly explain why they can't just be replaced with robots overnight.
I am a SWE of 20y and what a roller-coaster this article was!
On comp- it seems to me that some of it depends on whether or not the AI productivity improvements creating an oversupply of labor. I agree that the pendulum will swing towards headcount and salary cuts in the short term. I'm planning for things to be different for me within the next 5y. Time will tell if the FAANG-like layoffs were trimming excess or more aggressive, with the latter causing the software/business to suffer (I think it will). There's a ton of nuance describing what a swe does and how much of it is replaceable. Certainly AI has helped me and my peers become 15-30% more productive _when writing code_ but at the principal level less than half of my time is spent writing code.
Engineering is a black box - eh sometimes. Lots of factors going in but I assert that some level of abstraction that results in the opaqueness is how the world works. It depends on how willing the observer is to actually try to understand what's going on it it. Nobody should expect to completely understand how any specialization works. Queue the Office Space people skills clip.
"Engineering feels (rightly) that they aren’t understood and appreciated. The rest of the business feels (rightly) that they’re dealing with a withholding, black box."
I agree with many of the points you've raised, and they resonate with my own experiences. One key aspect that often gets overlooked is the need for balance in engineering roles—similar to the Yin and Yang symbol. The narrative you’ve outlined is frequently misunderstood or undervalued, and I've found that this misalignment can sometimes be beyond the engineer's control due to entrenched hierarchies or cultural norms that define 'success' narrowly.
Totally agree - and I think what I'm learning from the comments like this is that not only is it undervalued, but many leaders take it for granted. Ex: they think that perception should just match reality, and get frustrated when it doesn't. They don't realize that it's a concentrated effort and practical skill to get there!
Some great points in this article, which I'm sure will unfortunately not be read by the people who most need to read it.
Two notes:
1) The system will bounce back. It always does, except for the collapse of an industry, which despite the AI boom, this is not. Engineers are still needed, but as noted in the article, this is not fully recognized. When engineers are fired en masse and stability starts to tank in 1 - 5 years, industry will reverse course. The engineer's duty is to weather the storm, and the team lead / technical manager's duty is to attempt (possibly futilely) to make the case to the top leadership, as discussed in the article somewhat.
2) Some engineers are, or become, dead weight. This is not denigration towards engineering -- it's true in all sectors. It just happens to be more true in areas where hiring, and protection from firing, has been above par. In other words, industry has stocked many engineers, many of whom have been more or less coveted. It is inevitable that some will be more "competent" than others (using that term loosely, since it is very context dependent, and changes across jobs, cultures, and more).
In a meritocracy, we hope that we can do the work of keeping the ones who "deserve" it in their jobs (again, using that term loosely and without intent to inaccurately ascribe incompetence to those who simply struggle in a particular context).
YES. Not to downplay the pain the shift will cause, but I'm bullish on freeing up engineering talent because it means that industries like government, healthcare, education, arts, nonprofits will actually get some love.
Also totally agree that the orgs that make deep cuts now trying to follow trends are in for a hell of a lot of pain because of the points you mentioned. My fear is that it will be misattributed/misunderstood....as humans we're badly wired to comprehend cause and effect when the impact takes too long.
Will add you your point number two in that the systems we have in place don't give "bad" engineers a fair chance to hear feedback and grow. They live in echo chambers and are rewarded with constant promotions...they don't even get the chance to improve.
Great article, so many good points, so many parts to argue about, thank you :)
I'd like to argue a bit about the points of "building narratives" and "justifying yourself(your existence)".
While I fully agree with the observation that there is a huge gap in understanding from "the business"(aka non-tech executives) about how engineering function works, I do not believe that "building better narratives" is the solution.
There are several objective and fundamental reasons why this happens. One of them is that yes, engineering does require a specific and deep expertise, more than just a human common sense(even of a smart human).
But this is nothing fundamentally new. Hardware engineering, Scientific RnD(like chemical or clinical research), medicine - all of these disciplines are not really understood by those, whom we can call "classic financial MBAs".
Lawyers and doctors might very well talk in a way so that one would like to pull their hair out and say "USE NORMAL-PEOPLE WORDS!"
I wonder, what Engineering can learn from these disciplines. Why engineers are not perceived as mature professionals like medical doctors or lawyers. What is missing. Is it just a narrative?
To strengthen the point - "building better narratives" or trying to "justify yourself(your existence)" might be an uphill battle.
Yes, totally agree that narrative can't solve this on it's own in every case! But it's objectively an exec job requirement that most CTOs flat-out ignore. THAT is what rankles me.
I actually think that docs/lawyers are just too different from engineering in a corporate setting. Unless you're in the health/medical fields, you typically don't even have a chief medical officer. Top law roles in big companies are also rarely C-suite exec because they tend to offer incisive rather than overall strategic value (ex: you need to take GDPR into account, but GDPR is rarely central to your business strategy).
This changes the way these roles can relate to the C-Suite. If you need to navigate an one-off medical or legal challenge, you're okay with relinquishing control to an expert. You'll (hopefully) follow legal's guidance even if you don't fully understand the case law behind it.
But...engineering is in every single strategic decision for most orgs. No one is going to be okay with blindly relinquishing control constantly, whether it's in engineering, ops, sales, or marketing. Like it or not, crafting their narrative is how every other function survives in corporate - engineering faces unique challenges, but it doesn't get a pass.
I actually think that the best role for CTOs to learn from are their CMOs. They actually face similar challenges - brand maintenance and demand generation are actually some of the best parallels to things like platform maintenance and DevEx.
Phew! Sorry for the long response and thanks for the thought-provoking comment.
It does seem though that you think that the entire engineering population are just a bunch of spoiled overpaid 20 years-old with no developed communication skills since they didn't "need it".
If this is the core point you are making then I am not sure if you are better than the average engineer that seems to think that everyone is stupid and not doing enough.
OMG not true at all! I’ve actually written an entire piece on why good engineering inherently requires strong communication and social skills.
I'm just pointing out the fact that engineering is often perceived poorly, regardless of how well they might be performing. CTOs need to acknowledge this reality and adapt now that engineering is no longer "untouchable" by the org at large.
But...I love your comment. You’re illustrating one of the underlying issues here; most engineers confuse perception vs. action.
This article is about the former. Whether or not you did a good job is not the same as whether other people BELIEVE you did a good job. A lot of eng leaders focus on ensuring delivery and team morale. Along the way, they don't explain things in a way non-technical stakeholders can understand and they don't read the room - ex: if layoffs are happening throughout the org, probably not the time to whip out your developer happiness survey.
Basically, they neglect perception, but then get frustrated when perception (inevitably) doesn't match reality. They think that if they do a good job, people *should* get it.
That's just...not how things work. No matter how good an IC you are, whether or not you get recognized for it is completely in the hands of your leadership. It's literally their job to faithfully tell your story and MAKE people's perceptions match reality. Pre-2022, failing to do this meant you missed a promotion and would be unhappy at work. Now, more and more, it's whether or not you have a job at all.
If you're an IC, my hope in writing this was to inspire you to expect/demand more from your leadership. You deserve it.
If you're a manager/leader, the hope was to help you see the importance of managing perception, and do better for the sake of your teams.
Seriously though - thanks for your comment. DMs are also open if you want to chat more!
While I agree that "creating a culture" was top-of-mind for CTO's in the "fatty years", I think there is a very important point that is not mentioned here. Hiring is a way of gaining power within an org. It is the prime and proven way to do exactly the "politics" the CTOs apparently "weren't doing enough of". What if we flip the idea here to "instead of trying to obtain influence and inflate headcount, CTOs should focus on building product and delivering value"? The "can you just use NORMAL WORDS" comment is a strange aside, and showing the person who wrote it in a very negative light. I know plenty of engineers who can use "normal worlds" alright, should anyone bother to actually listen. But the trend of the "fatty" years would be to prevent engineers from speaking to anyone because there was a thick (and thickening) layer of management which was laser-focused on usurping access to stakeholders.
Personally, I think "the big shrink" will likely do very well by CTOs who can get back into the building mindset and the experienced engineers who will suddenly find themselves in a position where there is no insulating layer of middle management between them and the C-suite. Time will tell.
I'd challenge your perception that "politics" = growing headcount.
Growing headcount can help further your perception in an org, but it's - frankly - the most primal and inelegant way. The fact that so many eng leaders think it is THE way is telling.
The most influential product orgs also tend to be the leanest. Another example is the CFO office. You don't need headcount to show power. In fact, bloated teams fear these smaller orgs because their very existence calls them out on their bullshit.
There are certainly times where it's appropriate for CTOs to be builders in early stages. But your primary objective as an executive is to watch out for the business as a whole, bring others along, and provide aircover for your team. If you don't want to do that - totally cool. There are tons of founding engineer or IC roles out there for you. But you don't get to take up the mantle of leadership without the actual leadership part.
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion! Dms are also always open.
I think this mistakes a short term correction for a long term trend.
Current AI models aren't nearly good enough to even approximate a junior-junior developer. Let alone compensating for not-having top talent.
On the contrary, AI is tremendously useful for many low-skilled repetitive tasks, such as help center work. In my mind the AI revolution people dream about is still at least 20 years away. And could turn out much like Fusion turns out to be always 10 years away.
Regardless, corrections are normal things in a market. It doesn't invalidate the trend though. I predict the next five years we will see the IT job market not only recover, but boom. Precisely because the world is made of software.
The only genuine long term risks are wars and an increased frequency in disasters.
IMO I don't think there is a long-term where FAANG companies will be paying $350k salaries en-masse to hundreds of thousands of engineers anymore - that in itself is seismic. I say this as someone bullish on engineering as a function. I'm optimistic that engineering won't shrink, but just become more accessible to sectors like non-profits/arts/etc without FAANG inflating salaries.
Regardless, I think just the promise of AI is enough to be wildly disruptive. Even if it's ACTUALLY no good, greedy boards or over-optimistic execs might still eliminate jobs if they BELIEVE it's good enough. Eng leaders need to be able to justify their teams and clearly explain why they can't just be replaced with robots overnight.
I am a SWE of 20y and what a roller-coaster this article was!
On comp- it seems to me that some of it depends on whether or not the AI productivity improvements creating an oversupply of labor. I agree that the pendulum will swing towards headcount and salary cuts in the short term. I'm planning for things to be different for me within the next 5y. Time will tell if the FAANG-like layoffs were trimming excess or more aggressive, with the latter causing the software/business to suffer (I think it will). There's a ton of nuance describing what a swe does and how much of it is replaceable. Certainly AI has helped me and my peers become 15-30% more productive _when writing code_ but at the principal level less than half of my time is spent writing code.
Engineering is a black box - eh sometimes. Lots of factors going in but I assert that some level of abstraction that results in the opaqueness is how the world works. It depends on how willing the observer is to actually try to understand what's going on it it. Nobody should expect to completely understand how any specialization works. Queue the Office Space people skills clip.
"Engineering feels (rightly) that they aren’t understood and appreciated. The rest of the business feels (rightly) that they’re dealing with a withholding, black box."
Nailed it.
I agree with many of the points you've raised, and they resonate with my own experiences. One key aspect that often gets overlooked is the need for balance in engineering roles—similar to the Yin and Yang symbol. The narrative you’ve outlined is frequently misunderstood or undervalued, and I've found that this misalignment can sometimes be beyond the engineer's control due to entrenched hierarchies or cultural norms that define 'success' narrowly.
Totally agree - and I think what I'm learning from the comments like this is that not only is it undervalued, but many leaders take it for granted. Ex: they think that perception should just match reality, and get frustrated when it doesn't. They don't realize that it's a concentrated effort and practical skill to get there!
🔥this is also happening to tech/eng adjacent disciplines accused of the same cultural squishiness - research, design, data, product marketing etc
CTO typically has the biggest people budget line and that’s gotta be hard to defend forever if you’re not over-delivering.
Some great points in this article, which I'm sure will unfortunately not be read by the people who most need to read it.
Two notes:
1) The system will bounce back. It always does, except for the collapse of an industry, which despite the AI boom, this is not. Engineers are still needed, but as noted in the article, this is not fully recognized. When engineers are fired en masse and stability starts to tank in 1 - 5 years, industry will reverse course. The engineer's duty is to weather the storm, and the team lead / technical manager's duty is to attempt (possibly futilely) to make the case to the top leadership, as discussed in the article somewhat.
2) Some engineers are, or become, dead weight. This is not denigration towards engineering -- it's true in all sectors. It just happens to be more true in areas where hiring, and protection from firing, has been above par. In other words, industry has stocked many engineers, many of whom have been more or less coveted. It is inevitable that some will be more "competent" than others (using that term loosely, since it is very context dependent, and changes across jobs, cultures, and more).
In a meritocracy, we hope that we can do the work of keeping the ones who "deserve" it in their jobs (again, using that term loosely and without intent to inaccurately ascribe incompetence to those who simply struggle in a particular context).
YES. Not to downplay the pain the shift will cause, but I'm bullish on freeing up engineering talent because it means that industries like government, healthcare, education, arts, nonprofits will actually get some love.
Also totally agree that the orgs that make deep cuts now trying to follow trends are in for a hell of a lot of pain because of the points you mentioned. My fear is that it will be misattributed/misunderstood....as humans we're badly wired to comprehend cause and effect when the impact takes too long.
Will add you your point number two in that the systems we have in place don't give "bad" engineers a fair chance to hear feedback and grow. They live in echo chambers and are rewarded with constant promotions...they don't even get the chance to improve.
Great article, so many good points, so many parts to argue about, thank you :)
I'd like to argue a bit about the points of "building narratives" and "justifying yourself(your existence)".
While I fully agree with the observation that there is a huge gap in understanding from "the business"(aka non-tech executives) about how engineering function works, I do not believe that "building better narratives" is the solution.
There are several objective and fundamental reasons why this happens. One of them is that yes, engineering does require a specific and deep expertise, more than just a human common sense(even of a smart human).
But this is nothing fundamentally new. Hardware engineering, Scientific RnD(like chemical or clinical research), medicine - all of these disciplines are not really understood by those, whom we can call "classic financial MBAs".
Lawyers and doctors might very well talk in a way so that one would like to pull their hair out and say "USE NORMAL-PEOPLE WORDS!"
I wonder, what Engineering can learn from these disciplines. Why engineers are not perceived as mature professionals like medical doctors or lawyers. What is missing. Is it just a narrative?
To strengthen the point - "building better narratives" or trying to "justify yourself(your existence)" might be an uphill battle.
Yes, totally agree that narrative can't solve this on it's own in every case! But it's objectively an exec job requirement that most CTOs flat-out ignore. THAT is what rankles me.
I actually think that docs/lawyers are just too different from engineering in a corporate setting. Unless you're in the health/medical fields, you typically don't even have a chief medical officer. Top law roles in big companies are also rarely C-suite exec because they tend to offer incisive rather than overall strategic value (ex: you need to take GDPR into account, but GDPR is rarely central to your business strategy).
This changes the way these roles can relate to the C-Suite. If you need to navigate an one-off medical or legal challenge, you're okay with relinquishing control to an expert. You'll (hopefully) follow legal's guidance even if you don't fully understand the case law behind it.
But...engineering is in every single strategic decision for most orgs. No one is going to be okay with blindly relinquishing control constantly, whether it's in engineering, ops, sales, or marketing. Like it or not, crafting their narrative is how every other function survives in corporate - engineering faces unique challenges, but it doesn't get a pass.
I actually think that the best role for CTOs to learn from are their CMOs. They actually face similar challenges - brand maintenance and demand generation are actually some of the best parallels to things like platform maintenance and DevEx.
Phew! Sorry for the long response and thanks for the thought-provoking comment.
I agree with a lot of what your article mentions.
It does seem though that you think that the entire engineering population are just a bunch of spoiled overpaid 20 years-old with no developed communication skills since they didn't "need it".
If this is the core point you are making then I am not sure if you are better than the average engineer that seems to think that everyone is stupid and not doing enough.
OMG not true at all! I’ve actually written an entire piece on why good engineering inherently requires strong communication and social skills.
I'm just pointing out the fact that engineering is often perceived poorly, regardless of how well they might be performing. CTOs need to acknowledge this reality and adapt now that engineering is no longer "untouchable" by the org at large.
But...I love your comment. You’re illustrating one of the underlying issues here; most engineers confuse perception vs. action.
This article is about the former. Whether or not you did a good job is not the same as whether other people BELIEVE you did a good job. A lot of eng leaders focus on ensuring delivery and team morale. Along the way, they don't explain things in a way non-technical stakeholders can understand and they don't read the room - ex: if layoffs are happening throughout the org, probably not the time to whip out your developer happiness survey.
Basically, they neglect perception, but then get frustrated when perception (inevitably) doesn't match reality. They think that if they do a good job, people *should* get it.
That's just...not how things work. No matter how good an IC you are, whether or not you get recognized for it is completely in the hands of your leadership. It's literally their job to faithfully tell your story and MAKE people's perceptions match reality. Pre-2022, failing to do this meant you missed a promotion and would be unhappy at work. Now, more and more, it's whether or not you have a job at all.
If you're an IC, my hope in writing this was to inspire you to expect/demand more from your leadership. You deserve it.
If you're a manager/leader, the hope was to help you see the importance of managing perception, and do better for the sake of your teams.
Seriously though - thanks for your comment. DMs are also open if you want to chat more!
https://blog.godfreyai.com/p/the-myth-of-the-anti-social-engineer
^ Shameless self promo ;)
Yeah reading this post, gave me better context of where you are coming from for this post. Thanks for sharing 😊