Engineering Leadership Styles

The diversity of approaches to problem-solving that software engineering offers is what makes it so beautiful. Our task may be compared to being given an endless supply of LEGO bricks without any instructions—all we need to do is reach the end objective.

Then we advance to managerial positions. Our traditional, tedious management tasks include setting expectations, making decisions, inspiring others, and ensuring execution. That is not totally accurate, though. As engineering leaders, we may also be creative in our work, for example, by combining various people management philosophies.

In this article today, we will examine a few of them, such as:

• Micromanagement
• Center-out Leadership
• Top-down Leadership
• Psychological Safety Leadership (based on physiopsychological research and the Polyvagal Theory)

Micromanagement

Alright, let us address this first, because micromanagement is a style as well. It exists because some organizations do not give their new leaders the assistance they need. Micromanagement is therefore rather frequent, even in businesses that are seen as successful.

Here are some of its attributes:

• Constant supervision: monitoring every aspect of a teammate’s work and requiring frequent status updates.
• Lack of delegation: not delegating tasks or responsibilities, preferring to do things themselves.
• Excessive control: dictating exactly how tasks should be done, even when the employee has the skills to handle them independently.
• Frequent Corrections: lack of trust in the employee’s abilities and constant correction of the employee’s work.

It can be difficult to hold micromanagers accountable, particularly when the micromanagers are the team's senior engineers or established members of the organization. They possess profound domain expertise, have previously "seen things," and can recall each and every trick they used along the way. But it is important to keep in mind that this kind of leadership diminishes others' autonomy and sense of ownership, which can be detrimental to engineering teams.

Center-out Leadership

In center-out leadership, decision rights are distributed within a set of boundaries. This means teams and individuals have the autonomy to make decisions within their areas of expertise, but a framework is still in place to ensure alignment with overall goals and ways of working.

As an engineering leader, you set expectations (such as technical standards, non-functional requirements, product acceptance criteria, hypotheses, principles, and guidelines). But then you invite the team to provide their input and collaboratively work on the problems ahead—yyou set WHAT, and they decide on HOW.

For you, as an engineering leader, the center-out approach opens new ways of working with your team and product stakeholders. By reducing the cognitive load required to always be on top of everything, you can shift your attention to:

• Building your understanding of the product context,
• Growing and empowering your people,
• Managing the strategic direction of the technology you oversee.

The center-out approach is not without its costs and risks. The biggest challenges include:

• Complex Decision-Making: Without effective facilitation, discussions may drag on for months without reaching a consensus.
• Potential for Chaos and Misalignment: Center-out leadership requires clear boundaries and effective collaboration.
• Need for Strong Leadership Skills: In addition to technical expertise, leaders must also develop skills in coaching, facilitating, and empowering their teams effectively.

Top-down Leadership

Sometimes, the environment doesn’t allow us to go immediately into a center-out approach. These scenarios include:

• Bootstrapping the team, ways of working, and common standards,
• Taking the lead during a crisis,
• Minimizing variance when we expect exact results (e.g., financial reports).

In such cases, a more classic, top-down approach to leadership can be a better fit.

In a top-down approach, management retains data and decision-making authority. The leader develops or selects the best solutions, and their direct reports are expected to execute these directives. This approach can often be observed at the organizational level, where senior management makes strategic decisions without lower-level consultation and expects teams to implement the decisions made.

Though often viewed as micromanagement, the top-down approach has its strengths. It brings:

• Efficiency: Decisions can be made swiftly without needing consensus from multiple stakeholders.
• Clarity: Clear directives and expectations can simplify roles and responsibilities.
• Control: Managers can enforce policies and standards effectively.

But the main costs and risks are:

• Lack of employee engagement,
• Risk of misalignment,
• Leader’s cognitive overload

Psychological Safety Leadership

The list of leadership styles wouldn’t be complete without some materials that come directly from the study of human behavior — psychology.

Many of us have heard about Google’s research, which says that psychological safety is a critical factor in high-performing teams.

“In a team with high psychological safety, teammates feel safe to take risks around their team members. They feel confident that no one on the team will embarrass or punish anyone else for admitting a mistake, asking a question, or offering a new idea.”

According to the American psychologist and neuroscientist Stephen Porges' Polyvagal Theory (PVT), our autonomic state serves as a mediator, assisting safety cues and appropriate social support in moving us from vulnerability in dangerous situations to accessibility in supportive environments.

In simpler terms, neuroception engages the resources of the Autonomous Nervous System (ANS) and regulatory systems based on the presence or absence of safety. It serves as our internal “safety radar,” operating subconsciously to continually assess our environment through:

• Internal Check (Inside): Am I safe? Do I have what I need?
• Interpersonal Check (Between): Am I safe? Am I seen, liked, understood, and supported?
• Environmental Check (Outside): Am I safe here? Do I belong here?

Safety is not just a concept but an embodied state, fundamental to regulation. Based on PVT, there are six basic strategies to make you and your team feel well, safe, and productive:

Clarity: clear communication about job responsibilities, salary, benefits, and promotion criteria.
Predictability: A leader should be predictable in their demeanor—cconsistent, stable, and attentive—mmaking it clear what others can expect from them.
Belonging: Nurturing a sense of belonging within the team enhances the work atmosphere and effectiveness.
Flexibility and Sensitivity: Support employees through personal hardships, reinforcing safety and stability rather than conditional support.
Co-regulation: Effective teams are characterized by ongoing relationships based on mutual regulation and trust.
A Sensory-Friendly Environment: Reducing sensory overload helps facilitate deep work. Leaders should strive to minimize unnecessary distractions in the work environment.