The Engineer Turned Leader

You’ve got an amazing engineer who’s super smart, respected by everyone, and knows the system inside out. They’ve shown they’re ready for a bigger challenge, so it’s no surprise you want them to lead the team. On paper, it’s the obvious choice. After all, they know the company, the people, and the product. They’ve earned trust by being great at what they do. It sounds like a fantastic choice! And often, it works out.

That is until the pressure hits.

Then those skills that make someone a great engineer don’t always translate into the skills needed to lead when deadlines slip, people get stressed, and information is incomplete. That technical expertise, the close-knit group dynamics, and the tendency to overthink are great in the engineering world, but not so much in leadership when things start to go downhill.

It’s important to remember that this isn’t a personal failure, but rather a mismatch in roles under stress.

Trait Mismatch

Leadership doesn’t quietly fail. It fails in predictable ways. When the pressure is on, the mismatch in character traits between engineers and leaders becomes evident.  

Problem Solving vs Making Sense 

Engineers are like detectives, always on the hunt for the perfect solution to problems. They gather all the info, break down the factors, and come up with the best plan. But sometimes, they get so caught up in the details that they forget to see the bigger picture. Leaders, on the other hand, take a different approach. They start by setting the direction, even if they don’t have all the answers right away. They know they don’t have everything figured out, but they’re determined to find a way to move forward and make the best decision possible. Engineers wait for more information, while leaders work with what they have.

When time is compressed, depth becomes delay.

Systems Control vs. Human Influence 

Engineering logic says that if you give the right inputs and follow the rules, you’ll get the right results. This works great for machines, equations, or any closed system where things tend to settle down. But organizations aren’t machines. They’re actually open systems with lots of moving parts that interact in unpredictable ways. When things get tough, engineers tighten the rules, add more processes, and build tools. They want to make sure the system behaves predictably. But leaders, on the other hand, give context, permission, and trust. They understand that behavior is the real constraint.

People don’t behave better under tighter control; they behave quieter.

Personal Output vs Collective Throughput

Engineers often believe perfection demands self-assignment, but this can trap them. Pride in their work leads to a sense of heroism, but in reality, they become bottlenecks, hindering progress. Leaders understand they don’t need to be personally engaged in the work; they focus on increasing system output, even if imperfect.

What feels like leadership under pressure often turns into the system’s slowest point.

Binary Thinking vs Tradeoff Thinking

Engineers often operate in a black-and-white manner, thinking solely in terms of success or failure. These straightforward concepts offer a sense of security and defensibility. However, pressure can be challenging for individuals who rely solely on binary thinking. Leaders, on the other hand, excel in navigating the complexities of gray areas, striking a balance between speed and certainty. There’s no universally applicable formula for recovering a schedule that has fallen behind. When faced with pressure, the key lies in determining how much discomfort one can tolerate when making difficult decisions.

Leaders under pressure know there’s no one right answer, only clearly wrong direction.

Technical Authority vs Social Legitimacy

In engineering, a skilled engineer’s credibility rests on their ability to make accurate predictions based on scientific knowledge and practical application. On the other hand, a leader’s credibility comes from trustworthiness, not always being perfect, but handling challenging situations effectively. Leaders who feel the need to always be right might hesitate, over-explain, or get stuck in analysis, losing trust before they achieve results.

Hesitation to make decisions or over-explaining choices in order to be right can erode trust.

Local Optimization vs System Stability

Engineers start by fixing the obvious problems. They make sure these issues are resolved quickly and permanently so everything works again. Leaders, on the other hand, focus on preventing bigger problems from happening. They take their time to understand the root cause. They don’t chase isolated issues and forget about the bigger picture. Leaders want to keep things in control.

Rushing to fix the obvious fix often treats symptoms, harming morale, trust, and alignment, which become apparent too late.

Common Failure Modes Under Pressure

So what happens when an engineer turned leader is faced with high pressure issues? They tend to default to familiar instincts.

Over-Fixing: Engineers, in critical situations, rely on their technical expertise. They analyze inputs, constraints, and complexities to find technical fixes, prioritizing them over practical, human-centered solutions.

Conflict Avoidance: Engineers heavily rely on data for informed decisions, but without it, they miss crucial indicators of potential issues. This hinders corrective actions, allowing problems to escalate and worsen without intervention.

Staying To Close to the Work: Engineers prioritize familiarity and comfort in their work, utilizing their expertise to execute it effectively. In critical situations, they remain close to the task, guiding its execution. They believe leadership involves ensuring all actions are correct, so they may avoid decisive delegation and focus on monitoring tasks they understand.

Certainty Addiction: Engineers, driven by their pursuit of certainty, strive for absolute assurance in data and system limits. While this pursuit is commendable, it can sometimes hinder progress. In such cases, engineers may overthink, believing their meticulous analysis is cautious. However, excessive scrutiny can hinder decision-making because absolute certainty rarely exists.

These aren’t signs of incompetence. They come from a structured background of familiarity.

The Shift that Actually Matters

Engineers transitioning into leadership often struggle to adapt to the new role dynamics quickly. Developing essential soft skills for navigating complex situations takes time. In today’s fast-paced business world, new leaders must be decisive, visible, and accountable when faced with incomplete information. Demonstrating adaptability is crucial for engineers seeking leadership advancement.

Failing to adapt can hinder crisis management and lead to perceived incompetence from senior leadership. This can result in self-doubt and decreased motivation, further exacerbating the situation. When the pressure is on and the leader who can’t respond adequately feels ineffective, it’s the team and project that truly suffer.

As leaders, we don’t need to be perfect. What matters more is making smart decisions quickly. Even when things are crazy, we need to guide people in the right direction without having to over analyze. Learning to take ownership of our actions and dealing with the consequences is important, because pressure doesn’t wait for comfort.

Practical Reframes

One method in dealing with decision making under pressure is to reframe the issue.  For example, 

• “What decision made now would make this easier in three months?”
• “If I have to choose right now, knowing what I know now, what would I do?”
• “What is the real problem being avoided because it’s uncomfortable or unclear?”
• “How personally involved in this task do I really need to be, and what can I delegate?”

As with most problems, shifting your perspective can automatically change your mind’s angle on it. This new context can alleviate some confusion and stress, leading to fresh ways of thinking about the challenge. Consequently, it may feel more manageable and less overwhelming. 

In Closing

Engineers can become fantastic leaders. But the rules change quietly when they are promoted as responsibilities shift from systems to people, from being right to exercising good judgement, and from personal output to organizational momentum. Engineers can struggle navigating this transition and, when faced with pressure, default to what worked in the past.

While these traits aren’t necessarily bad for engineers, it’s important to be aware of them and manage them. And the good news is that these traits can be developed.