Shipulski On Design

Archive for April, 2026

There is a dearth of engineering leadership capability, and it negatively impacts the company’s bottom line every day.  And it’s prevalent in all levels of the engineering organization.

Entry-level engineers feel the lack of engineering leadership capability as soon as they arrive.  They want to know how to get things done, how to address a lack of information, how to address a conflict, and how to develop themselves and their career. And yes, they want to know how to approach the work, use the tools, and follow the protocols.  But first-level engineering leaders don’t know how to help the young engineers in these ways because no one taught them.  And they don’t even know they’re supposed to give that type of guidance because no one ever gave them that type of guidance and support.

The result is a confused, disgruntled, and frustrated entry-level engineering crew who are unhappy and ineffective.  And the two things you don’t want in your entry-level engineers are unhappiness and ineffectiveness.  This directly impacts the bottom line.

Step up one level in the engineering organization, and though the needs are somewhat different, the problem is the same.  The mid-level engineering leaders don’t teach how to work across teams, how to assign work that will help engineers grow, how to create development plans, how to execute the work defined in those plans, and how to build confidence in their team members.

The result is more ineffectiveness and more frustration, but on a larger scale.  Talent retention becomes a problem, and engagement in the work wanes.  Both are bad for the bottom line.

Step up another level and, though the problems are different, the situation is the same.  The top-level engineering leaders can’t develop the mid-level leaders, the first-line leaders, and the entry-level engineers.  They were raised in the broken system and don’t know how to grow talent.  And the problem is so widespread that the engineering organization thinks it’s normal that no one gets guidance, mentorship, and support.  It’s such a big problem and so widespread that no one recognizes that there’s a problem.

But there is a problem.  A big problem.  And there’s a root cause that can be remedied.

The engineering organization is judged on completing projects as fast as possible and with the fewest resources.  And this forcing function blocks leadership development altogether.  And because of how they’re measured, the engineering organization believes there is no time to improve leadership capability and grow world-class engineering leaders.  But this thinking is wrong.

In a karma yoga way, the projects are the mechanism to develop engineering leadership.  Teaching engineers and leaders how to collaborate across teams IS leadership development.  Guiding young engineering leaders through a process to balance schedule risk and technical risk IS leadership development.  Working skillfully through resource conflicts CREATES engineering leadership capability.  Growing engineering leaders does not require extra work.  And it does not slow down the projects.  It makes projects go faster because skillful engineering leaders spot problems early (because someone taught them how) and fix problems immediately (because someone showed them how to do it on the previous project).

Engineers were not taught how to be an engineering leader in engineering school.  And we aren’t taught how to be engineering leaders in our day-to-day work.  And engineers are starved for engineering leadership, and engineering leaders are equally starved for mentoring and guidance.

Systematically developing engineering leadership talent is not a cost; it’s an investment.  What would happen to your bottom line if your engineering teams collaborated more effectively, if your engineers were engaged in the work, if engineering resources flowed naturally to the most important projects, and if your engineers and engineering leaders stayed with your company twice as long as they do now?

To improve your bottom line, invest in improving your engineering leadership capability.  This is The Way.

Image credit — Rob Roy

To help your team members communicate more effectively, teach them to put their argument on one page.  Teach them what to leave off the page and explain why those things should be omitted. Teach them what’s at the top of the page and explain why.  Help them identify the central element and show them how to make it fill the center of the page.

Teach them that the professionals distill.

They will have difficulty stripping away the clutter.  They will have difficulty shedding the details. They will have difficulty raising the level of abstraction.  Their fear is typically that people (the leadership team) will think they don’t know what they’re doing because their one-pager doesn’t contain all the details.  It’s your job to help them think otherwise.  You have to help them understand that capable people know how to distill their argument to its essence and answer questions about the details when asked.

To help your team members get the tone right, teach them about snarl words and no purr words.  Snarling and purring create a manipulative tone that devalues the argument.  Teach them to use the fewest, clearest, non-judgmental words.  And no blaming words.  Explain that “they” and “them” signal that there are competing factions that aren’t working well together.

Teach them that words matter.

To help your team communicate a complicated process, system, or approach, teach them to create a hand sketch that represents the complicated idea.  The hand sketch method is like the verbal decluttering described above, but teaching them to create a hand sketch takes the distillation to the next level. The hand sketch is not the process itself; it represents the process.  The sketch doesn’t describe the system in full; it focuses on the main pillars. And it doesn’t describe the approach in a flow chart way; it elevates the novel elements.  And to further raise the bar, limit the number of words to an unreasonable number like six or twelve.

Teach them that a sketch demonstrates understanding.

This one-page approach can also be used for problems, planning, and prioritization, but that’s for another time.

Image credit — Tambaco The Jaguar

Coach? Mentor? Consultant? What’s the right word?

Subject matter expertise.  However they categorize themselves, they must have subject matter expertise.  If you work in the hardware space, they should have experience in hardware.  If you work in the software space, they must have software experience. Ask if they have solved a similar problem in a similar space.

People and Teams.  Whatever they call themselves, they must know how to create the conditions for effective team performance to emerge.  Yes, there is a need to help individual leaders elevate their game.  That’s the minimum entry criterion.  But it’s not enough to guide one person.  Big growth objectives require engaged teams that work together and pull in the same direction.  Have they pushed a team in a skillful way to elevate the work and have the team stand taller because of it?  Ask them for objective evidence.  Have they helped an engineering team obsolete their best work?  This is a high bar because the team must see their best work as something that can be made irrelevant, see themselves as a team that can elevate their work, and be fully engaged in the go-forward challenge.

Systems, not point solutions. Regardless of how they identify, it’s not enough to create a solution for today’s problem.  Anyone can create a narrow solution for today’s specific problem. Have they created the systems, processes, tools, and built out the roles/responsibilities to prevent a broader, more global class of problems?

In the trenches.  Bottom line, no matter their label, they must have done similar work in a hands-on way.  Not in an advisory way, not in an oblique way, not in a thought-leader way, but in an in-the-trenches way.  In a I-did-it-myself way.  Ask them what their role was.  Ask them what they did.  And if they can’t be specific with you, don’t hire them.

It doesn’t matter what they call themselves.  But they must have subject matter expertise, they must have helped teams elevate their game and stand tall, put preventive systems in place, and worked in a hands-on way.

Image credit — Paul VanDerWerf