This transcript was produced by robots and left as-is. Accuracy and elegance are not guaranteed.

So in the last episode, we talked about why so many engineers can’t see what they’re actually good at. And there’s a common reaction when that happens. If you can’t see your value clearly, you try to signal it in other ways. One of the most common ways engineers do that is through certainty. Strong opinions, clear conclusions, decisive answers. Earlier in your career, that works. Later on, it quietly starts working against you. This episode is about why that happens. So engineers are trained to be right, not in an ego driven way, but in a technical sense. There is a right answer. There is a correct calculation. There is a solution that works and one that doesn’t. So we learn to value certainty and we get rewarded for it.

You’re the person people go to when they need an answer. You’re decisive, you don’t waffle, And that reputation gets noticed. But as your role changes, the problems change too. Early problems are bounded. The system is defined. The variables are mostly known. Later on, problems aren’t like that. They involve people. Competing priorities, incomplete information, trade-offs with no clear answer. But many engineers don’t change how they communicate when the problem changes. They keep delivering conclusions, and that’s where credibility starts to erode. Here’s what that looks like. You’re in a meeting, a decision is being discussed, you see a flaw or a risk or a better option, so you state your conclusion clearly.

This won’t work or we shouldn’t do that or the risk is too high. Technically, you might be right, but something subtle happens in the room. The conversation narrows, other people stop thinking out loud. They stop contributing. They start reacting instead of collaborating. Not because you’re wrong, but because certainty closes space. This is where engineers get confused. They think credibility comes from being correct. But in leadership context, credibility comes from how you think in front of others, not just what you conclude. When you jump straight to certainty, people don’t see your reasoning. They see a position and positions invite resistance. So the uncomfortable part is that the more senior you get, the less people challenge you directly. They nod or they go quiet, or they just defer. And engineers often interpret that as respect, but sometimes it’s disengagement. Certainty hasn’t built influence, it’s shut it down. I see this a lot in coaching. Engineers will say things like, I don’t understand why people don’t speak up in meetings, or my team just waits for me to decide. And when we unpack it, the pattern is consistent. They’ve been training people not to think out loud.

Not by being harsh, and not by shutting people down, but by being too certain too early. This doesn’t mean you should become vague, it doesn’t mean hedging everything, and it definitely doesn’t mean pretending you don’t know the things you know. What it means is learning to sequence certainty. Instead of leading with conclusions, you lead with reasoning. Instead of saying, this approach won’t work, you say, here’s the risk I’m seeing. Help me pressure test that. Instead of saying, we should do X, you say, these are the trade-offs I’m weighing and here’s where I’m leaning. Same expertise, very different impact. When people can see your thinking, they trust your judgment more, not less. You’re not giving up certainty, you’re making it usable. And this connects directly to the last episode. If you can’t see what you’re good at, you’ll compensate.

Often with certainty. And when certainty starts to fail, most engineers don’t slow down, they do more. They become more reliable, more responsive, more indispensable. And that’s where a different problem shows up. In the next episode, we’re going to talk about what happens when performance becomes the strategy. Why being indispensable feels like progress, but often turns into a trap.

That’s what we’ll unpack next.