Leadership Self-Reflection
Integrating the Inner and Outer Worlds of Engineering Leadership
As a leader of engineering teams, I had certain strengths and weaknesses. And I would worry about my weaknesses far more than I would take pride in my strengths.
When I first stepped into engineering management I was good at developing trust with engineers and in teams and creating the space for honest individual and team introspection and growth, but I was relatively weak technically. As a self-taught web application developer I often felt ashamed that I lacked the knowledge to support engineers in enterprise systems design and architectural decisions. I was interested in the bigger-picture organisational complexities, as well as the social and psychological aspects of people and their relationships, but sometimes struggled with technical decisions. I hated corporate politics and while I found it interesting, I found it difficult to navigate organisational hierarchies and probably clumsily stepped on other people’s toes at times through being too brutally honest in sensitive situations.
I tried to be the best manager, leader, and human being that I could be at the time, but growth comes through experience and self-reflection so there were plenty of times I fell short of my higher aspirations.
“As an organizational leader, you’ll always have a portfolio of risk, and you’ll always be doing very badly at some things that are important to you. That’s not only okay, it’s unavoidable.”
Will Larson, An Elegant Puzzle: Systems of Engineering Management
There are countless aspects to software engineering leadership, and as Will Larson alludes to, it is simply impossible to be good at everything. Stepping into engineering management means being confronted with a never-ending source of complex situations to navigate - you’ll soon find that people and their relationships will, depending on your disposition, offer either a continual stream of anxiety-inducing failures or a rich source of learning opportunities about human nature.
Over time I’ve developed my own philosophy of management and leadership which I’m bringing to the work we are doing at Human-Centric Engineering centred around enabling people to make their deepest contributions in engineering cultures built around our fundamental human needs. I’ve come to learn that leadership isn’t simply a role in the organisational hierarchy, but an attitude that anyone, in any position, can take in the right context - we can all be proactive, take the initiative, and courageously lead the way by taking ownership of a situation and empowering supporting others in moving forward.
82% of leaders are ‘accidental leaders’
Many people are unprepared for management and are ‘accidental managers’ as described in a report1 published in October 2023 by the CMI (Chartered Management Institute) in the UK. The study claims that 82% of managers entering a management role have had no formal management or leadership training. (Thanks to
for bringing this to my attention in his article 82% Of Managers Are Accidental Managers!)
“One of the stand-out findings of this survey is the proliferation of “accidental managers” in the UK economy. These are individuals who are promoted to run a team simply because they are popular, good at their job, or happen to be available to take charge.
We know what can happen next. Within weeks, productivity and team spirit plummet as the new boss finds themselves out of their depth trying to cope with the messy day-to-day reality of managing the people who now report to them.”
While the CMI study is not focused on software engineering the findings are likely to relate to the experiences of many of us in the industry. Perhaps the lack of management or leadership training is starker in engineering as people with highly specialist technical expertise are not always suited to the nuances of managing people and teams.
A self-reflective approach to understanding where you are on your leadership journey
At Human-Centric Engineering we’ve set out with the assertion that software engineering is a deeply human endeavour. Building software is a creative pursuit involving the social dynamics of collaborative teamwork. The solutions built by software engineers are (hopefully) designed as tools for the flourishing of humanity - although I use the cautionary ‘hopefully’ as tech can be used for good and bad.
We have been working on approaches to understand the human experience at work, notably through our Engineering Culture Index. When assessing the results of our Engineering Culture Index it’s clear that so much of an engineer’s experience is determined by the leadership styles they are affected by, whether it's with the Tech Leads or Principals they work with, their Engineering Manager, Head of Engineering or CTO. It is clear that if we are looking to create humane work environments, where engineers experience a sense of mastery, autonomy and purpose in their work, we need to understand the characteristics and capabilities inherent in human-centric leadership.
To this end, we sought out a methodology to help managers and leaders understand their relative strengths and weaknesses as they progress through their careers. Growth relies on experience plus self-reflection. I often feel that in corporate life we simply don’t have sufficient time, space and support for self-reflection and so we get overwhelmed and overburdened by experience - one stressful moment after another with the time to reflect, consolidate and integrate our experiences. I therefore wanted the methodology to be one that emphasised the value of self-reflection.
“Pain plus reflection equals progress”
Ray Dalio
I’ve been interested in theories of personal development and transformation for years and have flirted with ideas from influential thinkers in the domain. The likes of Clare Graves, Robert Kegan, Will Torbut and Ken Wilber. I’ve also been fascinated by some of the more esoteric and unconventional ideas of human development and human consciousness through the likes of Timothy Leary and especially Robert Anton Wilson, author of my favourite book ‘Prometheus Rising’.
With this background interest in personal development theories it occurred to me that Ken Wilber’s four quadrant model inherent to his ‘Integral Theory’ would map well to the developmental competencies of engineering leaders as it is a holistic and integrated approach to understanding complex phenomena - and engineering leadership is certainly in the domain of complex phenomena. Wilber’s work draws from wide influences, including that of developmental theorist Clare Graves whose model of development was expanded on by Don Beck and Christopher Gowan in their more accessible ‘Spiral Dynamics’ approach.
The theories I’ve mentioned are known as ‘Stage Theories’, asserting that as humans we transcend through clear stages of development as we grow and transform. While there is a good degree of consensus around the stage theory of development in children, largely thanks to the work of Jean Piaget, there is less consensus around ‘Stage Theory of Development’ in adults (and some critics, notably from the domain of complexity theory - Nora Bateson, and Dave Snowden). Personally, I apply the idea that ‘no models are perfect, but some are useful’, and stage theories of personal development have helped me to form ideas on how people and societies develop and why there is so much friction between people and nations deeply entrenched in different stages and therefore worldviews. Spiral Dynamics and Integral Theory are deep rabbit holes to dive down.
One aspect of Ken Wilber’s integral theory which relates to your personal growth as an engineering leader is his concept of ‘transcend and include’. As we develop, our perspectives and worldviews change, and in the process, we can fall into the trap of rejecting the views of other people who may be at an earlier stage of personal development. The idea of ‘transcend and include’ is a reminder not to abandon the perspectives of our previous thinking as our understanding advances but to integrate it into a broader, more holistic perspective - and to therefore be more open to the perspectives of others who may be at different stages. Progress is not about rejecting the past, but building upon it - to create more inclusive and comprehensive frameworks.
The four-quadrant model of engineering leadership
Wilber’s Integral Theory framework is structured around a grid with four quadrants. This grid has two intersecting axes:
One axis distinguishing between interior and exterior perspectives (subjective and objective viewpoints)
The other axis separates individual and collective aspects (Me versus my team or organisation)
This four-quadrant model creates a comprehensive framework that aims to capture different dimensions of human experience, knowledge and capability.
Before you dive into our explanations below, you might want to hear how the conversational podcast feature built into Google’s new NotebookLM tool interpreted our approach in our first (and most likely last) reaction video. It’s surprisingly good - it did a much better job than we expected.
Here is how we have applied the four-quadrant model to engineering leadership. I will break down each quadrant with an explanation.
Below are explanations of each quadrant with links to the GitHub repo storing the respective question statements (we’ve open-sourced the question model).
I - Subjective: The self and our Inner world
This quadrant focuses on the internal, subjective experiences of an engineering leader, including thoughts, feelings, and personal beliefs. This quadrant encourages leaders to reflect on their leadership philosophy and emotional intelligence, their ethics and integrity. By reflecting on and cultivating self-awareness, leaders can improve their sensemaking, make better decisions, improve their relationships and how they support their teams.
This section echoes the ancient doctrine of ‘know thyself’, reflecting the individual and interior aspects of the quadrant model.
IT - Objective: Observable skills and behaviours
The Skills and Behaviours quadrant examines observable behaviours and measurable competencies, emphasising the importance of technical and observable leadership skills in achieving organisational goals. For engineering leaders, this perspective explores one’s depth of experience in bringing about tangible outcomes and achievements.
This section reflects the observable skills most likely to appear on a candidate’s CV/Resume and an interview conversation. It reflects the individual and exterior aspects of the quadrant model.
WE - Intersubjective: Culture and relationships:
The Culture and Interpersonal quadrant addresses social dynamics and relationships within teams and organisations. Engineering leaders play a pivotal role in shaping a psychologically safe environment that fosters collaboration, trust, and open communication. By understanding interpersonal relationships and team cohesion, leaders can cultivate a healthy and generative engineering environment where individuals feel valued and empowered to make their deepest contributions.
This section covers the delicate and subtle aspects of relationships and engineering culture. This is reflecting the collective and interior aspects of the quadrant model.
ITS - Interobjective: Organisational and strategic
The Organisational and Strategic quadrant focuses on the external structures and systems that influence organisational and team effectiveness. For engineering leaders, this perspective underscores the importance of strategic thinking, systems thinking, and navigating organisational politics. Leaders must align the engineering capacity with broader business objectives and effectively manage resources to optimise performance. By understanding the organisational context and fostering strategic partnerships, engineering leaders can cultivate a healthy and generative engineering environment where individuals feel valued and empowered to make their deepest contributions.
This section becomes more relevant as you progress to higher levels of responsibility in the organisational hierarchy and reflects the collective and exterior aspects of the quadrant model.
Next steps
We have been road-testing the survey and so far the response has been positive. It’s still early days and we will be making changes based on feedback we’ve already received as well as allowing the survey to evolve naturally. We have open-sourced the survey to make it accessible and amenable to improvements. At the time of writing, we are on v0.1.0-alpha so there will be changes before the official release.
If you are in an engineering leadership role (Tech Lead, Principal, Engineering Manager, Head of Engineering, or CTO) then we would love you to try the survey. We have an automated MVP where you can take the survey via a Google Form and then receive by email a link to the report (no gimmicks or sales tactics, we are just keen to hear people’s feedback)
Try the survey…
Taking this self-reflective survey might expose some capability gaps that leave you feeling unsettled, so it’s worth thinking about contextual caveats:
The survey is designed for several hierarchical levels, from Tech-Lead through to CTO. If you’re just starting out on your leadership journey you will simply not have had the opportunity to gain experience in some areas.
Lewin’s Law applies to managers and leaders - B = f(P, E) where Behaviour is a function of the Person and the Environment, and the environment plays a very large role in your behaviour (or performance). If your organisation leans towards a toxic or bureaucratic culture, you may not have the support you need to lead in a human-centric way.
If someone claims to be an expert in leadership then remember that ‘knowing is the enemy of learning’ - leadership is the practice of continual learning and growth
Remember that the future oak tree is calling to the acorn - we may not be where we aspire to be, but if we feel we are on the right path then all we can realistically do is take the next step. Progress is iterative, and sometimes we plateau, but sometimes we have experiences that are truly transformative and bring us closer to our potential.
After taking this survey, you may want to talk through the results with your own manager or coach. Or you may want to jump on a call with us for a free feedback conversation (reach out to John or Simon via Linked In) or more structured 1:1s with us to help you along your path.
We also have a waitlist for our Leadership Labs, which are online sessions where you can learn together and share experiences with your peers. Engineering leadership can be a lonely experience, this will be a private place for collective inquiry and conversation.
You don’t have to be an ‘accidental leader’ - bring it up with your manager, get some coaching, join our Leadership Labs.
Above all, we are really open to feedback. I’ve already reached out to a couple of contacts in the software engineering field who are formally trained in Integral Theory to help validate our approach and their feedback will be incorporated into the next release.
Vision
Hopefully, our Engineering Leadership Self-Reflection survey will reveal some useful insights and spark some constructive conversations which will ultimately lead to enabling leaders to create more human-centric ways of working with their teams.
We will soon be incorporating our MVP survey into a web application which in time will offer a range of survey-based tools and other resources aimed at supporting the human side of software engineering.
Managing people and leading teams can be challenging at the best of times, and even more so in times of rapid change and uncertainty. We wish you all the best along your journey.
The CMI report can be found at: https://www.managers.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/CMI_BMB_GoodManagment_Report.pdf
Methodology & acknowledgements:
CMI commissioned the leading polling organisation
YouGov to look at the state of UK management and leadership. The managers’ survey fieldwork was undertaken between 8–14 June 2023. The survey was carried out
online and was fully completed by 2,524 employees with management experience.
The workers survey fieldwork was undertaken between 5–12 June. The survey was carried out online and fully completed by 2,018 employees with no management experience.
In addition, CMI also undertook some research with managers who are members of CMI to get some insights into the qualities and impact of a good manager. The workers survey fieldwork was undertaken online between 15 June and 6 July and fully completed by 1,030 CMI managers.
This is a really brilliant article. I want to read it again more thoroughly
I’d love to know your feedback from doing my quiz which also has similar learning and self awareness opportunities as you talk about above
https://knowingselfknowingothers.co.uk/quiz/