Introduction: The Role of Culture in Engineering Success
Peter Drucker famously said, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” As I reflect on this, I can’t help but acknowledge how crucial a strong engineering culture is to success—but the challenge lies in defining and cultivating it in a way that truly aligns with business goals. Over the years, I’ve tried various approaches to building culture, and what I’ve realized is that culture is often treated as something abstract—something we hope will emerge, but not always something we can proactively shape.
What if we could think about culture-building as a structured, evolving process? What if we could use a framework like Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to guide us? This thought experiment isn’t about offering a definitive framework, but about exploring the possibility of applying a proven model from psychology to engineering culture in a way that aligns with both top-line growth and bottom-line efficiency.
Rather than focusing on gaps, I propose that we could shift the conversation to: How can we build, contribute to, and measure our engineering culture? By re-imagining Maslow’s five levels for engineering teams, we open up a space to explore how we might nurture an environment where engineers can thrive—and where those thriving engineers can deliver real business impact.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: A Brief Overview
Maslow’s theory of human motivation suggests that individuals progress through five levels of needs, from basic survival to self-actualization. In this thought experiment, we look at how this hierarchy might apply to organizational culture. By using this lens, we can think about what we can prioritize in our engineering teams at each level—what’s critical for moving up the pyramid, and how that progress ties directly to performance and outcomes.
Engineering Culture Through Maslow’s Lens
Here’s where we begin to play with how Maslow’s five levels could map onto engineering culture—and what that means for business impact. Each level represents a potential opportunity for leaders to foster specific cultural traits.
Level 1 &2 : Stability & Psychological Safety (Physiological & Safety Needs)
- Engineering Equivalent: Reliable infrastructure, predictable processes, clear role expectations, job security, and a psychologically safe environment where engineers can voice concerns without fear.
- Business Impact: If we get this right, we reduce burnout, improve retention, and build a foundation for predictable delivery. Without it, teams struggle to operate effectively, which ultimately slows everything down.
Level 3: Teamwork & Belonging (Love & Belonging Needs)
- Engineering Equivalent: What would happen if we are really invested in communication, mentorship, and inclusivity?
- Business Impact: Teams become more efficient, silos break down, and knowledge sharing accelerates—leading to faster problem-solving and improved product outcomes.
Level 4: Growth & Mastery (Esteem Needs)
- Engineering Equivalent: Imagine engineers continuously evolving, with ample learning opportunities, career progression, challenging projects, and regular recognition of contributions.
- Business Impact: A growth-oriented environment fuels motivation, innovation, boosts productivity, and creates an environment that retains top talent.
Level 5: Purpose & Autonomy (Self-Actualization Needs)
- Engineering Equivalent: Here, we explore what happens when teams are truly empowered—given ownership over projects and aligned with the company’s broader vision.
- Business Impact: Innovation takes center stage, decision-making becomes more fluid, and the impact on customers grows.
Beyond Level 5: Legacy & Influence (Transcendence Needs)
- Engineering Equivalent: What if teams contributed beyond the organization—driving industry change, mentoring others, publish research, and making an impact on the broader tech ecosystem?
- Business Impact: This not only boosts the company’s brand but attracts top talent and positions the company as a thought leader in the industry.
Steps Engineering Leadership Can Take
If we were to explore how leaders can guide teams up this hierarchy, these are some actions worth considering:
- Foster Psychological Safety – This could look like clear onboarding, open communication channels, and ensuring a developer-friendly environment.
- Enhance Collaboration – This might involve mentorship programs, cross-team learning opportunities, and inclusive rituals that promote belonging.
- Prioritize Growth – Could we focus more on internal training, career development frameworks, and challenging engineers with real ownership of complex problems?
- Promote Ownership – Here, the goal would be to shift decision-making power to teams, reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, and ensure that work aligns directly with business outcomes.
- Empower Influence – How can we help engineers contribute to the broader tech community through open-source projects, speaking engagements, and mentoring the next generation?
Key KPIs to Track & Manage Culture
Tracking progress doesn’t have to be abstract. If we took this thought experiment further, here’s how we might track cultural development:
- Retention & eNPS – Indicates psychological safety and belonging. A high retention rate of and an eNPS score indicate a thriving culture of psychological safety and belonging..
- Collaboration Metrics – Think about pull request reviews, communication patterns, and inter-team interactions.
- Learning & Growth – Track internal mobility and participation in skill-building opportunities.
- Innovation Metrics – Count the number of POCs, patents, or open-source contributions to measure creative output.
- Business Impact – We could track metrics like engineering efficiency, incident response times, and overall developer productivity(cycle time, lead time, bug rate, deployment frequency, etc.)
Challenges & Alternative Perspectives
As with any experiment, there are challenges. This model isn’t the ultimate answer. In fact, some organizations might find frameworks like Daniel Pink’s Motivation Theory(Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose) more aligned with their needs. However, applying Maslow’s hierarchy to engineering culture gives us a progressive, structured way to think about cultural priorities and actions—and that could be a helpful starting point.
Conclusion: An Evolving Model for Culture
At the end of the day, culture is an evolving system—something we shape through deliberate actions and constant learning. The thought experiment here isn’t about achieving a perfect formula. Instead, it’s about seeing culture-building as a dynamic process—one that we can measure, iterate on, and continuously improve.
As with any experiment, the framework needs refining. That’s where your feedback, experiences, and insights come in. What has worked for you in shaping engineering culture? How do you approach this challenge in your teams? I’d love to hear your thoughts and feedback as this idea continues to evolve.
Quiet Reflections 