Process is comfortable. It gives us checklists, meetings, and the satisfying feeling that we're being rigorous. But here's the uncomfortable truth: most process exists to make us feel like we're solving problems, not to actually solve them. The real leverage comes from mechanisms, systems designed so thoroughly that the right outcomes happen by default, not by heroic effort or perfect compliance.

It's a common scenario: a team member expresses frustration to their manager about a company policy, a client issue, or an internal process. The manager, wanting to build rapport, nods along and perhaps adds a complaint of their own. The intention is often to connect, but this act of commiseration is a counterproductive habit for leaders. It trades a moment of superficial agreement for a long-term negative impact on team culture and effectiveness.

In tech companies across Australia, 'tech debt' is thrown around as a catch-all excuse for prioritising certain engineering work. But this concept is often misunderstood and can be harmful to technical roadmap planning.

Ever found yourself in a meeting where your brilliant idea fell flat, not because it wasn't good, but because of how you presented it? I have, more times than I care to admit. Ever wondered why some people’s ideas tend to be accepted more than yours? If might simply come down to how you start your pitch.

There's a concept in outdoor adventure circles called "Type 2 Fun." Unlike Type 1 Fun (immediately enjoyable activities), Type 2 Fun is often not fun at all while you're doing it but becomes enjoyable in retrospect.

I discovered this firsthand during my first half-marathon. Mile 10 was pure agony—legs burning, lungs screaming, mind begging me to stop. Nothing about that moment felt "fun." Yet crossing the finish line delivered a satisfaction that immediate pleasures rarely provide. Looking back, that gruelling experience transformed into one of my proudest memories.

This paradox perfectly describes the reality of engineering leadership in startups.

As an engineering leader, mentioning that you track lines of code (LOC) is often met with immediate pushback. "We deliver so much more value that producing code!” "Lines of code don't measure quality!" "You'll incentivize bloated code!" "The best engineers delete code!" “Outcomes over outputs!”. All valid comments in some contexts, but they miss a crucial point: quantitative metrics, when used appropriately alongside qualitative data, provide valuable insights into team performance and health.

Cross-functional teams have become the backbone of modern product companies, bringing together product managers, engineers, and designers to tackle complex customer problems. But while these teams promise better decisions and greater autonomy, many organizations struggle with fundamental questions: How should teams be structured? What problems should each team own? How do you ensure they maintain long-term customer focus rather than getting lost in feature delivery? Team Charters offer a powerful solution to these challenges, providing teams with clarity of purpose and the foundation for true customer obsession.

It can be hard to know where to start when defining a strong organisational culture for a product business. One thing is for sure though, great product and tech businesses all share on thing in common: a culture that seeks to achieve product, engineering and operational excellence for its customers. Depending on what your teams do, these customers may be internal or external, but the goal is still the same: ensuring customer success.

Last week the world celebrated International Women’s Day and over the week many female leaders shared powerful stories. One pleasing change I've seen over the past few years is a shift from a focus on Equality to Equity for Women in the workforce. Where once quotas were a big discussion point, we’re actually talking about the real stuff – how workplace culture and sexism tends to just make it challenging for females to succeed to the same levels as men.