Engineering Leaders Share Tactics for Building Functional Team Cultures

Panel: Building a Culture that Works

Engineering leaders from diverse technical organizations shared specific, actionable approaches to cultivating team environments where people can thrive and contribute effectively. Rather than treating culture as an abstract HR initiative, the panelists framed it as a set of daily practices engineers can actively shape.

Nicky Wrightson (BeZero Carbon) opened by describing her ideal environment as one where she can "change the environment that I'm in" and provide autonomy to engineers. This set the tone for discussions centered on tangible levers for influence, particularly for those earlier in their careers.

Lesley Cordero (The New York Times) emphasized feedback loops as critical input for culture improvement, especially for junior engineers who have fewer natural channels to be heard. She described how engagement surveys and one-on-ones become more valuable when paired with finding allies who possess social capital: "Tenured people tend to be good allies because they know the company culture more." This ally strategy creates amplification paths for perspectives that might otherwise lack visibility in hierarchical structures.

Matthew Card (BBC) expanded on lending social capital, explaining how he uses his position to expose others to complex situations: "I think that exposing people is a type of energy where I'm giving my energy to somebody else so they can then grow." He described deliberately stepping back from hands-on work to create space for others to engage with challenging problems, framing it as an investment in collective capability rather than personal task completion.

Suhail Patel (Monzo) connected technical practices to cultural outcomes, arguing that engineering culture inevitably influences broader organizational norms. Using Monzo's experience as a bank, he explained how their engineering emphasis on simplicity and transparency ("making things as simple as possible, abstracting things away") gradually affected how risk and compliance teams approached regulation: "When you try to work with these folks and trying to understand the spirit of the regulation... the two are in common." This alignment required engineers to actively bridge cultural gaps by explaining technical trade-offs in accessible terms.

For remote and hybrid teams, Natan Žabkar Nordberg (topi) stressed intentionality around connection. He replaced standard one-on-ones with a "session zero" format where the first half focuses purely on personal context: "I want to hear about what you did on your weekend. I want to hear about your hobbies." This approach builds the trust necessary for productive work conversations by addressing the human dimension first.

The panel addressed decision-making inclusivity through Patel's "civilized discussion hour"—a fixed, twice-weekly forum where squad members explain the context behind decisions made elsewhere in the organization. Crucially, the decision itself is already made; the session focuses solely on understanding rationale. This separates the need for input from the need to reconsider settled matters, reducing meeting fatigue while building shared context: "We've intentionally called it the civilized discussion hour to have a civil discussion about things that are potentially going to be contentious."

On culture change timelines, Patel rejected the idea of a finish line: "It's continuous. It doesn't end." He noted that every new hire fundamentally alters organizational makeup, making culture an ongoing adaptation process. Nordberg offered a heuristic: culture change speed equals willingness to experiment multiplied by openness, divided by institutional inertia. This highlights that change requires both reducing resistance and increasing active experimentation.

When addressing perfectionist engineers, Card suggested clarifying acceptable failure types: distinguishing between process violations (unacceptable) and reversible, inconsequential trials (acceptable learning opportunities). Cordero added that managers must assess whether an engineer's critical lens is creating impact or simply causing frustration, noting that "pointing it out constantly can have that maybe negative effect" if not balanced with recognition of constraints.

For evaluating culture during interviews, the panelists recommended moving beyond scripted questions. Nordberg advised asking managers "why are you hiring for this role?" to uncover unspoken reasons behind vacancies. Patel suggested seeking perspectives from those not conducting the interview and examining external artifacts like engineering blogs and conference talks: "Look at the company persona on the outside... How do they behave in the wider engineering community?" These tactics aim to bypass the "manicured" answers typically given in formal interviews.

The discussion consistently returned to culture as an engineering challenge requiring deliberate practice rather than passive acceptance. As Wrightson noted early on, thriving in an environment means being able to change it—a perspective that positions culture work as core to technical leadership rather than a peripheral concern.