Embodying a Great Engineering Culture
How to Build a Great Engineering Culture: Article 4
When building a great engineering culture, the most important thing is how you influence people’s behaviour to align with your desired culture. It doesn’t matter how well you document your values, rituals and expectations; if you don’t affect people's behaviours, then your culture will be only words on a page.
People are hard. Change is hard. Changing people’s behaviour can be very hard. Every step up until now in this framework of building an engineering culture (see article one for background) has been about creating clarity around expectations: the Define Step (article two) explained how to clarify the values themselves, and the Embed Step (article three) described how to clarify how the rituals and ways of working can embed the values well. This article focuses on changing people's behaviours to align with their values. Changing behaviours requires you and your leadership group to embody the values deeply, ensuring that aligned values are acknowledged and misaligned values are consistently addressed and corrected, creating an inclusive and safe environment in which the values can flourish.
I’ll share a bit of a dirty secret. Although I have explained how to define and embed a culture, I have previously built engineering cultures without following those steps in detail. Instead, I focused purely on changing behaviours by embodying and championing them. In this article, we’ll look at exactly how to do this. This article focuses on engineering cultures, but its principles apply to any culture.
Embodying the values yourself
To truly build a culture, you, as the leader in the business, need to embody the values yourself. People need to look at you and see, through your actions, what “great” for the values looks like. You and your leaders must consciously strive to go above and beyond to ensure that you live the values. At this point, many readers will probably be thinking, “Thanks, Captain Obvious. What a surprise that the leaders need to embody the culture themselves”, but doing this requires a significant amount of self-awareness to determine if you are truly living the values well, and hard work to ensure that you continue to improve and overtly demonstrate the values well enough for people to see and follow.
For example, if one of your values emphasises openness and transparency, your direct reports and their teams should experience clear and transparent communication. A sign of success is that people are not taken by surprise.
Real-world example: planning a restructure. For instance, when planning to restructure the engineering department, rather than announcing the final structure to everyone unexpectedly, we opted for transparency. Shortly after deciding on the restructuring, we informed the team about the potential changes, the reasons behind them, and our objectives. I collaborated with leaders and teams to explore options, seeking input from various individuals at different stages of the process. I held follow-up sessions with the entire department to share our current thoughts and solicit additional feedback. Ultimately, we reached a final decision involving individuals either directly or through team leads. This process exemplifies transparent communication and embodies our core values.
Stamping out behaviour misaligned with values
One of the most important things to do to embed a culture and ensure it flourishes is to stamp out any behaviours that are grossly counter to the culture and values.
Whether it is done publicly or privately depends a lot on the context. For example, for someone new to the company whose violation of the culture isn’t particularly egregious, it is probably best to pull them aside and let them know what they did, why it is against the culture, and what needs to change. More apparent violations need to be publicly called out.
Real-world example: Asynchronous discussions that went too far. I’ve had multiple occasions where Slack discussions or pull request threads have gone too far. On one occasion, someone stated that they did not feel safe continuing the debate. On that occasion, I had to write a Slack post about what safety entails and requires, as well as how to be more considerate when communicating asynchronously. I also raised it in the following wider engineering forum, advising people to get on a call before it reaches that point. I also brought the two people involved together and mediated a discussion between them on how they should proceed. The first couple of escalation points in Slack and wider Engineering Team meeting show the group what behaviour will be tolerated and what won’t be. Mediation helps solve the specific issue.
Change is hard for people, so stamping it out once is unlikely to change behaviour. It needs to be called out every time. Every time someone exhibits significantly misaligned behaviour, I will have a one-on-one conversation with the violator and explain the behaviour and why it is a problem. This repetition can be tedious and challenging for some people, but it is necessary to affect cultural change. Some people are grateful and respond well, gradually changing over time. Some people don’t, and then you have a tough decision about whether they should remain at the company. But to change the behaviour, it needs to be called out every time.
Acknowledging behaviour aligned with values
Positive acknowledgement of aligned behaviour is as essential as stamping out misaligned behaviour. People should be called out explicitly when they demonstrate behaviours aligned with your culture. Public or private depends on the context and the individual's preference for acknowledgement. However, the default should be public acknowledgement, as it sets an example for others to follow. When acknowledging the behaviour, it’s essential to be clear and explicit about why it aligns with the value and why it was important (i.e., why it benefited the company).
What you acknowledge will also depend on the context and the individual. For people generally aligned with your values and doing well, you may publicly call out behaviours with a bigger impact or greater effort (privately, you can continue to acknowledge as much as you want). For people whose behaviours are generally not as aligned with your desired culture, you may choose to acknowledge even minor changes in behaviour that are more aligned with your culture. They may be behaviours that other people do every day, but for those whose behaviours are misaligned, they may be a big effort.
Real-world example: Acknowledging effort to improve. I had someone who repeatedly struggled with his communication. He was a direct communicator, but he did not consider how he delivered his message, which often came across as rude and aggressive. He had been working hard on his communication and had a run of delivering messages that would have previously been aggressive but had done well to deliver them more constructively. In a public forum, I acknowledged him, but it was about the effort he had put into improving his communication to align with our values. Essentially I was acknowledging that he was less of a dickhead, which is what almost everyone else successfully does all the time, but for him, it was a big step forward, so worth acknowledging.
Creating an environment where the values can flourish
Simply embodying the values and calling out violations isn't enough. You and your leaders must foster an environment where others can live the values, encouraging the culture to flourish. This doesn't come naturally, and early leaders often struggle, as it may require stepping back from familiar behaviours to create the necessary space for others. A few examples can clarify this.
Example one: Teaching leaders how to be less direct to allow others to be more direct. One company I worked for had a Value around direct and open communication. It was about Radical Candour: Communicating openly and directly but with care and compassion. In an engineering-wide meeting (at the time, there were approximately 10 people, including engineering leaders and junior staff), one of the juniors raised a problem (as a gripe) that he had observed. In response, one of the senior engineers, an Engineering Manager (EM), spoke up, stating that he would be direct and open, sharing his opinion: “I get frustrated when people just raise problems and complaints without identifying a solution”. In his mind, the EM was being open and direct by stating how he was feeling, which was him trying to embody the value. However, the result was that he reduced openness and directness across the business, as junior developers would now think twice and be less likely to voice their concerns in the future.
After that event, at the next engineering leadership meeting (which only included senior engineering leaders), I brought up the event and explained the points I had just raised above. I then mentioned that to create an environment where the value of openness and directness can flourish, the EM needs to encourage junior engineers to raise their concerns rather than discourage them, which means the EM should be less direct, thereby allowing the value to flourish within the company.
Example two: Managers must challenge more inclusively. Another company had a value of “Challenge what’s accepted”. The intent behind this value is for people not to merely accept the status quo or what leaders say but to think critically and challenge conventional ideas.
At that time, I was an Engineering Manager, and my team had a proposal for addressing a particular problem that was somewhat unconventional. They were excited by it and presented it to a senior manager. The senior manager was a bit sceptical about the approach and started grilling it. He dug into it, trying to tear the idea apart. After a while of interrogation and criticism of the idea, he announced that he was simply “challenging what was accepted.”
Once again, he did not understand that his leadership position imposes a different need to allow the value to flourish. His action reduced that value in the organisation. He thought he was “challenging what was accepted,” but given his senior leadership position, whatever he says is already what is accepted. His actions meant that the team was demoralised and less likely to proactively present innovative ideas that challenge what is accepted.
Instead, he needed to bite his tongue a bit, listen to what was being presented, and try to understand why it was innovative and different. He could have asked a similar set of questions but had he approached it from a perspective of curiosity and encouragement rather than interrogation and discouragement, then the value would have flourished.
So, as a leader, this concept needs to be embedded into the leadership. The concept of allowing values to flourish requires understanding: Leaders have different expectations for living values than non-leaders. And when I say leaders, I don’t just mean people leaders; I mean people who have significant influence in the organisation and other people look up to.
Creating an inclusive environment
A thriving culture also requires diversity. Many studies demonstrate that having diversity across various dimensions (gender, socio-economic status, race, religion, neurodiversity, etc.) yields a diversity of thought, which results in greater creativity, innovation, and better teams (see this HBR article as a starting point). To create this diversity, you need to cater for many different needs. For example, people who are introverts versus extroverts, neurodivergent versus neurotypical, have different cultural contexts (requiring different levels of support, different power dynamics, etc.) and exhibit different communication styles.
Trying to cater for all of these different needs can feel daunting. However, in the vast majority of cases, the things that will help include a minority perspective are usually common-sense ideas that also benefit people who are not part of that minority group.
For example, introverts often need time to process information before responding to a question, whereas extroverts tend to “think aloud” to process their ideas. If you let workshops and discussions be free-for-all, then extroverts may dominate at the expense of introverts. The simple idea of brainwriting, such as giving the team some time to silently put their ideas on post-its first, helps enable this. Not only does it create a more inclusive environment for introverts, but it also fosters a fairer environment for everyone, ensuring that quieter voices are not overshadowed by the loudest ones.
People with ADHD will often feel pulled in many directions when trying to prioritise and decide what work to do. One way to help with this is to ensure that the team's goals and priorities are clear to everyone, which benefits everyone, not just individuals with ADHD.
People with ASD tend to take longer to context switch and move onto a new task (but when they do, they can often have a much deeper focus than neurotypicals). To set clear context and reduce surprises and context switches, it is essential to ensure that the team is clear on their current work and how it aligns with the goals, as well as provide some indication of upcoming work. Additionally, maintaining a consistent context throughout a piece of work allows for a depth of context and productivity to occur. Again, all of these benefits will also extend to neurotypical individuals.
Being vulnerable
Being a leader is hard. There is an imbalance that needs to be addressed between the leader and their team, which is crucial for effective leadership. Not all information can flow from leaders to their team members. Some issues may be commercially sensitive, financially sensitive, or people-sensitive that cannot always be shared with your team. Similarly, there may be disagreements, tensions, and pressures exist in the leadership team that you don’t want to pass down unfiltered to your team. You still need to be a calming and positive influence on your team.
Striking the right balance between shielding your team and being transparent and vulnerable can be challenging, and I think most people tend to err on the side of hiding too much. One of the key ways to create trust and psychological safety is by being vulnerable. It also helps to create an environment in which values and culture can flourish.
Sometimes, you do need to let the team know that you are struggling, feeling flat, or need help. Not only does it make you seem more human, but it sets an example that leadership isn’t about being perfect. For example, I’ve had meetings with my engineering managers where I’ve expressed feeling flat and explained why. On other occasions, I have explained that I’m having trouble explaining a particular concept to the leadership team and need help to convey the message effectively. Not only does this demonstrate vulnerability, but it also provides an opportunity for people to step up and help achieve better results.
Overcoming Change Challenges
The primary challenge in building culture is often resistance to change. The approach to overcoming this resistance is by having people experience what success feels like within the new culture, making them more receptive to change. We will focus on a lack of capability, scepticism, and buy-in as examples of the sources of resistance.
Example: Uplifting capability to overcome resistance. Resistance can stem from a lack of capability to adapt to new ways of working. One team struggled to collaborate towards a common goal due to difficulties in visualising their work, leading to independent efforts. I introduced some key rituals and guided them in visualising their work more effectively, which helped them collaborate closely and achieve success. Once they understood how to thrive within the new culture and built the necessary skills, it became easier for that culture to take root.
Example: Overcoming scepticism. Scepticism about new cultural aspects can trigger resistance. When I introduced Test-Driven Development (TDD)—a practice where developers write tests before implementing functionality—some team members were initially doubtful of its value and hesitant to adopt it. A poorly written piece of code that the team had repeatedly complained about became the perfect opportunity to demonstrate the value of TDD. I organised a game to see who could refactor the code quickest, having pre-written tests for the functionality. After each attempt, I ran their code through my tests and highlighted any failures, prompting them to fix any bugs in their work. This iterative process demonstrated the speed and quality benefits of TDD. We also conducted a similar workshop to showcase the value of pair programming, which fosters collaboration. Experiencing success helped alleviate their scepticism.
Example: Getting buy-in. A lack of buy-in and involvement can cause resistance. To overcome this, we involve the team as much as possible when rolling out new processes. For instance, when introducing the Engineering Growth Framework, I solicited input on the criteria for each level through discussions and workshops. After defining the criteria, we conducted an exercise where team members assessed each other's levels to test alignment. After hearing their input, the team felt more bought in and less resistant. This involvement requires a delicate balance as a leader: encouraging participation while guiding the outcome. If the team's feedback risked deviating from the desired culture, I would have redirected it to align with our goals.
In Summary
As mentioned in previous articles of the series, there are multiple steps to building a great engineering culture; however, the most important part of building a culture is influencing people’s behaviour to ensure that everyone embodies the culture, which is done by:
So, take a moment to look around. What’s one thing you can do this week to help embody the culture more deeply? The way that you and those around you behave is what creates your culture.