Adapting Leadership Styles For Engineering Projects

Great engineering leadership isn’t about solving everything. It’s about creating the conditions where your team can. In my early leadership days, I thought I had to walk in with the answers. Over time, I learned something better: Most engineers don’t need hand-holding. They need clarity, context, and trust. Here’s how I lead now (and what’s worked): 1. Present the problem, not a pre-baked solution. → Engineers are problem-solvers. Don’t rob them of that. → Instead of “We need to use Kafka here,” say: “We need async processing at scale. Thoughts?” 2. Share constraints early. → Be open about deadlines, budget, team bandwidth, or tech debt. → Constraints help the team make realistic design choices. 3. Make room for trade-off discussions. → Your job isn’t to rush decisions. It’s to ensure good ones. → Let the team think through latency vs cost, monolith vs microservices, etc. 4. Guide the decision, don’t dictate it. → Ask: “What risks do you see?” or “What’s your fallback plan?” → Step in only when clarity or urgency is needed. 5. Protect builder time. → Cut unnecessary meetings. Shield them from noise. → Innovation dies in a calendar full of status syncs. Leadership is knowing when to speak and when to listen. You don’t earn trust by having all the answers. You earn it by helping your team find better ones.

Ever find yourself saying, “I’m playing the long game here” or “I need results, and I need them now!”? 🕒 If you have, you’ve stumbled upon a subtle yet vital aspect of leadership: short vs. long-term time orientation. 🏁 In business, our time orientation isn’t just about the clock; it’s about how we approach our goals, strategies, and even relationships. Let’s dive into the two ends of this spectrum: ➡️ Short-Term Focus: It’s all about now. Immediate results, quick wins, and tangible achievements. Great for hitting those quarterly targets and keeping things moving. But, is it sustainable? ➡️ Long-Term Focus: It’s the marathon, not the sprint. Building for the future, nurturing relationships, investing in growth and innovation. But does it sometimes lack urgency? So how do you lead a team that’s torn between these two orientations? Here’s what I’ve learned: 1. Recognize the Difference: Recognize your own preference and understand that these two orientations are not only valid but essential. Each has its place and purpose. 🧐 2. Build a Bridge: Align short-term goals with long-term visions. Your short-term ‘sprinters’ can see how their efforts contribute to the ‘marathon’ ahead.🔗 3. Communicate: Engage in open dialogue. Make sure that everyone understands both the immediate tasks and the bigger picture. 🗣️ 4. Adapt Your Leadership Style: Be ready to switch gears. Sometimes, your team needs a coach for the quick sprints; other times, a mentor for the long haul. 🧩 5. Celebrate Diversity of Thought: Embrace the different perspectives as a superpower instead of a challenge. It’s this mix that brings innovation and stability.🎨 6. Provide Support: Offer adaptive support for both orientations. Recognize the quick wins, but also celebrate milestones on the longer journey. 🫱🏼🫲🏾 Striking this balance isn’t easy, but it brings a harmony to our team that was incredibly powerful. The short-term energy keeps the team alive, while the long-term vision kept us aligned. How do you strike this balance? How has your time orientation shaped the way you lead? I’d love to hear your thoughts! 👇🏼 🕐🌟 #Leadership #Diversity #CulturalItelligence 📸 Jon Tyson : A picture of many clocks piled on top of eachother.

How should you adapt your leadership style, or request for support from a leader, based on the situation? Leadership is not a one-size-fits-all skill. The situational leadership model, pioneered by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, teaches us that the most effective leaders are those who adapt their style to fit the development level of the individuals or teams they are leading. And it also implies that the most successful team members are those who adapt their request for support from a leader based on the situation. This model breaks down leadership into four styles: 1. Directing (S1) - High Directive and Low Supportive Behaviour: Best for beginners needing clear instructions. 2. Coaching (S2) - High Directive and High Supportive Behaviour: Ideal for those with developing skills but lacking confidence. 3. Supporting (S3) - Low Directive and High Supportive Behaviour: Suitable for competent individuals who need encouragement and motivation. 4. Delegating (S4) - Low Directive and Low Supportive Behaviour: Effective for highly competent and motivated teams. Each style corresponds to a specific level of employee development, from low competence and commitment (D1) to high competence and high commitment (D4). 💡 Practical Tip: Evaluate the competence and commitment of your team members to determine the most appropriate leadership style. For instance, new hires may benefit from a more directing approach, while experienced staff may excel with delegation. 🔍 Reflective Question: Have you identified which leadership style you predominantly use? How could adjusting your approach help you achieve better results? 🚀 Leadership Challenge: Next time you assign a task, try to assess the readiness level of your team members and adapt your leadership style accordingly. Share your experiences in the comments below! 👥 If you found this valuable, please like, comment, and share your thoughts and experiences. 🚀 And for more content like this, please follow me at Dr Alan Barnard #LeadershipDevelopment #SituationalLeadership #ManagementSkills #ProfessionalGrowth #DrAlanBarnard #theoryofconstraints #impossibleunless