Introduction

After 15 years in software engineering and engineering leadership—ranging from IC (individual contributor) roles to CTO—I've seen countless engineers thrive (or struggle) based on how well their working style aligns with the company's needs at the time, from the Cisco's and GoDaddy's of the world, to your favourite seed-stage startup, I've seen different engineers suit very different working environments and company stages.

Over the years, I've spotted a pattern: all engineers exist on a spectrum between speed and accuracy.

This spectrum isn't about skill or seniority—it's about how engineers naturally approach their work. Some lean towards speed, optimizing for fast iteration and progress, while others prioritize accuracy, ensuring long-term maintainability and scalability.

Neither end of the spectrum is "better" than the other, but knowing where you sit—and understanding what kind of engineer your company actually needs—can be the difference between thriving in a role or feeling completely out of sync.

The Speed vs. Accuracy Spectrum

At one end of the spectrum, we have engineers who move fast, iterate quickly, and prioritize execution. At the other, we have engineers who optimize for correctness, long-term stability, and robustness.

Here's how they compare:

In reality, no one is purely one or the other—everyone exists somewhere on this scale, shifting slightly depending on experience, team culture, and career growth.

As an aside, I've figured out I sit somewhat more towards the speed end of the spectrum, but I still endeavour to account for the future where possible (ie. asking myself questions like, "is this tech-debt I can live with for now, and re-visit at a later date?"), but I love to make ideas "real" as quickly as possible - I find features and products that stay too theoretical for too long frustrating and hard to progress, so I'd much rather sketch out a first iteration (a prototype, MVP, etc...) and get it in front of everyone to pick apart.

Why This Spectrum Matters

Not all engineering roles are the same.

The biggest mistake I've seen—both from hiring managers and engineers themselves—is mismatching an engineer's natural working style with the company's needs.

Let's break this down with real-world examples:

1. The Scrappy Startup (0 → 1 Phase)

A newly launched startup needs to move fast, validate ideas, and iterate quickly. Speed-oriented engineers thrive here because:

• There's less red tape—no endless meetings or approval chains. You tend to wear multiple hats and can move swiftly through decisions, because there's very little review process in place.
• The goal is often to ship an MVP, not to perfect every function.
• Bugs or inefficiencies are acceptable trade-offs for momentum. A product that people love that has quirks is far more valuable than perfect code that no-one wants.

A startup filled with accuracy-first engineers can struggle in this phase. If every decision requires a debate about scalability, the company may never get a product in front of users. Dead on arrival.

Who excels here?

• Engineers who are comfortable cutting scope to deliver fast.
• Those who thrive in ambiguity and don't need a perfect spec.
• People who enjoy building and rebuilding as feedback comes in.
• Staying closely aligned with the founder/C-level people can be hugely beneficial here - make sure you understand the business goals and vision correctly, communicate your intentions, go build.

2. The Scaling Startup (1 → 10 Phase)

Once a startup finds product-market fit, things shift. Growth means technical debt starts catching up, and what worked in the early days starts breaking.

At this stage, accuracy starts to matter more. The company needs engineers who:

• Think beyond today's solution and plan for the next 6-12 months.
• Introduce better testing, automation, and architecture.
• Push back against reckless speed when it threatens stability.

The engineers who thrived in the early chaos might struggle here. A speed-focused engineer who loved hacking together an MVP may find the new focus on documentation, testing, and code quality frustrating.

Who excels here?

• Engineers who balance pragmatism with structure.
• People who enjoy building reliable systems rather than chasing constant new features.
• Those who can see the bigger picture and influence long-term decisions.
• At this stage, in my CTO roles, I've stepped back and zoomed out, whilst other engineers have continued shipping features. It gives me the chance to add the stability to the product that was skipped over to "get it out there".

3. The Enterprise or Regulated Industry (10 → 100 Phase)

At enterprise scale, everything slows down. When a single bug could cause millions in losses or legal trouble, accuracy is king.

Here, speed-focused engineers often feel handcuffed by bureaucracy. There's process, governance, and an expectation of predictable, well-tested releases.

The best engineers in these environments:

• Love digging into complex systems and making them robust.
• Care deeply about consistency, compliance, and security.
• Accept that things take time and focus on minimizing risk.

For engineers who are happiest when shipping fast and breaking things? This can feel like a slow-moving nightmare.

Who excels here?

• Engineers who enjoy optimizing for scale and efficiency.
• Those with patience for detailed planning and process-heavy work.
• People who appreciate long-term code stability over quick wins.
• I personally have to completely re-align my mindset when working with these companies - it doesn't naturally suit my working style, so I have to consciously slow down and amend my own expectations for how much I'm able to ship with the expedience I'm accustomed to.

Finding the Right Fit for You

If you've ever felt out of sync in a role, chances are it wasn't about skill—it was about fit.

Questions to ask yourself:

1. Do I get frustrated by slow decision-making?

   • If yes, you likely lean toward the speed-focused side.

2. Do I feel uncomfortable shipping something I know isn't perfect?

   • If yes, you lean more towards accuracy.

3. Do I prefer structured, well-defined work over ambiguity?

   • Accuracy-focused engineers thrive on clear problem spaces, while speed-focused ones embrace chaos.

4. What excites me more—shipping a quick prototype or refining a system over time?

   • The first is speed; the second is accuracy.

Recognizing your default mindset can help you find the right companies, teams, and roles where you'll thrive. If you can develop an awareness of your instinctive mindset, you can employ methods to consciously alter your working style, for the betterment of your own sanity and the success of the company.

Advice for Engineering Leaders

If you're hiring or managing engineers, understanding this spectrum is critical. The best teams blend both types of engineers strategically.

• Early-stage startups? Hire for speed, but ensure someone can clean up tech debt later.
• Scaling teams? Introduce structure without crushing momentum.
• Enterprise teams? Protect stability, but don't let process stifle innovation.

A great engineering culture values both ends of the spectrum—and allows engineers to shift across it as their careers evolve.

I've managed and led teams where I've had engineers at opposite ends of the spectrum - being aware of this polarity can help decide who might be best suited to various tasks and features when it comes to planning the product.

Final Thoughts

Whether you're an IC or a CTO, recognizing the speed vs. accuracy spectrum can help you:

• Find the right roles and companies that match your strengths.
• Adapt as your career progresses and new challenges arise.
• Build engineering teams that complement each other instead of clashing.

The best engineers don't just write great code—they understand how to apply their strengths to the right problems, at the right time.