Engineering organizations must create new roles to address evolving challenges
The speed of innovation doesn’t allow for standing still. Problems emerge. Priorities shift. Entire markets change faster than traditional job descriptions can adapt. That’s why engineering teams need to design new roles as a response to evolving challenges, before those challenges become obstacles.
This is not about bureaucracy. It’s about speed, problem-solving, and progress. When engineering leaders spot an inefficiency, a capability gap, or a recurring friction point, the right move is simple: create a position that owns that space, defines solutions, and drives progress. Sometimes this is a brand-new role. Sometimes it’s giving someone the freedom to solve a known problem in a different way. Done right, these roles fill blind spots and push the company into the future.
Roles are not static, they change with the business. What matters is clarity of purpose and freedom to execute. Senior leaders should expect their engineering organizations to build these positions when needed. Delay means missed opportunity. Velocity matters.
Informal roles can serve as incubators for future formalized positions within organizations
You don’t need a formal organization chart to start solving real problems. Some of the most impactful roles in engineering began as informal gigs, temporary responsibilities taken on by people who saw a problem and just decided to fix it.
That’s how Site Reliability Engineering (SRE) started. That’s how Staff Engineering as a discipline matured. Teams needed people to focus on system stability, architecture, and internal collaboration. Those engineers stepped in, shaped the work, and defined what those roles should be. Over time, the titles and responsibilities caught up.
Pillar Leads are engineers who wanted to solve foundational problems, developer experience, onboarding, training, community development, recruitment. They didn’t need titles to start. They needed space to lead. These roles were informal and layered on top of their existing responsibilities. Still, they delivered value, fast. And because of that, they scaled across new regions like EMEA, without resistance.
This is the model we should encourage. Give engineers room to lead when they see inefficiencies. Let them show results. Then codify what works. Leaders don’t need to wait for an ideal job description. The value of a new role isn’t in its formality, it’s in its impact.
If you want a fast-learning, high-output engineering organization, then you need a culture where engineers can lead informally. Those roles often become your next strategic advantage. And yes, sometimes, your next official job titles too.
Empowering individuals to define their roles increases clarity and enhances outcomes
Top-down role definitions slow things down. They assume one person knows everything upfront, scope, context, challenges, outcomes. That’s rarely true, especially in fast-moving engineering environments. It makes more sense to give individuals control over shaping their own roles, within the boundaries of company goals.
When engineers define their operational space, they build clarity. They understand which problems need solving, what success looks like, who they need to work with, and what support is required. That level of clarity leads to motivation and accountability. It also leads to smarter decisions.
This isn’t about giving people total freedom. It’s about giving them ownership over shaping the mission. Show them the direction, not every step to take. When they create the roadmap themselves, execution is faster and more resilient.
Success starts to compound when people switch from executing plans to defining them. And when that happens across your organization, especially among engineers, you build teams that don’t just scale. They lead.
Executives should consider this the blueprint for velocity. Empowering individuals doesn’t mean loss of control. It means better alignment, faster iteration, and a higher standard of execution.
The “4S framework” (Scope, success, stakeholders, support) provides a structured approach
If a role is going to succeed, it needs structure from day one. Not bureaucracy, clarity. That’s where the 4S Framework comes in: Scope, Success, Stakeholders, Support. It sets the foundation.
Scope defines what the person is solving and where their authority begins and ends. It identifies which problems they own, where dependencies lie, and how much time they’re allocating if this is a part-time responsibility. It also highlights tension points, where this overlaps with other functions, so decisions don’t stall later due to misalignment.
Success is about focusing on outcomes. Not vague goals, concrete results. The person in the role should identify what success means under real-world constraints, speed, quality, debt, risk. Thinking about failure is just as important. Trade-offs matter. Executives should expect their teams to evaluate both sides from the beginning.
Stakeholders are anyone involved. Internally, externally, cross-functionally. Listing them forces clarity about collaboration, influence, and alignment. It also signals how complex the execution cycle will be.
Support isn’t fluffy. It’s resources, time, access, people, data, tools, and budget. If someone needs three hours a week or full cross-functional backing, it should be known up front. Unclear support is the fastest way for a role to underdeliver.
The 4S Framework isn’t just a checklist. It’s a system for mutual understanding. When used consistently, it forces transparency and drives alignment between engineers and leadership. From a business perspective, it turns ambiguity into execution-ready roles. That’s the value.
Alignment conversations between managers and individuals are essential for clarifying role expectations
Even the strongest role definition falls short without alignment at the leadership level. Once someone defines their role, using something like the 4S Framework, managers need to sit down and assess the match. Where there’s alignment, you move forward. Where there’s misalignment, you fix it fast.
These conversations are not about micromanaging or policing expectations. They’re about creating shared understanding. When a manager sees the role one way and the individual sees it differently, performance issues are inevitable. Clearing up assumptions early protects both execution and the relationship.
At this stage, it’s common to identify gaps, missing support, competing priorities, unspoken conflicts. That’s the point. No ambiguous role should advance without this conversation. Executives should treat it like any other risk-reduction step. If an individual’s version isn’t meeting the strategic needs, there’s still time to realign, or reassign.
Sometimes you’ll find that the role is sound, but the person isn’t the right fit. That’s acceptable. It’s a sign of a system working as it should. Offering an exit ramp and placing the right person in the role prevents long-term misfires.
These alignment moments aren’t just checkpoints. They’re strategic calibration. They determine whether new roles drive acceleration, or confusion. If you skip the conversation, expect the latter.
Clearly defined and well-supported roles drive empowerment, while ambiguous ones risk failure and conflict
There’s a direct connection between unclear roles and underperformance. When no one knows what “done” looks like, when goals, decision rights, and support are vague, people stall. Conflict goes up. Morale drops. The organization pays the price in speed and output.
On the other hand, well-scoped roles with the right backing open the door to high performance. Engineers do more than deliver, they lead, execute better, and scale impact across teams. People want to contribute at a higher level. They just need clarity and enough support to do it effectively.
Executives should view role definition as a high-leverage activity. Ambiguity at this level has organizational cost, slower delivery, duplicated work, unresolved tension between teams. But when roles are precise and aligned, you enable teams that move fast and deliver results without constant course correction.
Keep in mind: clarity isn’t about controlling every detail. It’s about making sure there’s mutual understanding of the goal, authority, and support. That’s what drives execution.
In the end, great roles don’t just fill a gap. They create velocity. The best ones are built around trust, shaped by input, and executed with precision. Define them right, and back them properly, and you’ll get impact you can scale.
Key executive takeaways
- Create roles to match evolving needs: Engineering leaders should proactively define new roles to close capability gaps and respond to growth opportunities before they become blockers.
- Use informal roles as innovation pilots: Allow engineers to take on informal leadership or problem-solving responsibilities, high-impact roles often emerge organically before they are formalized.
- Empower engineers to define their roles: Giving engineers autonomy to shape their responsibilities fosters clarity, accelerates ownership, and aligns execution with strategic priorities.
- Apply the 4S framework for structure: Leaders should use Scope, Success, Stakeholders, and Support to create well-defined roles that balance initiative with organizational alignment.
- Prioritize early alignment conversations: Managers must review and refine newly defined roles with individuals to eliminate assumption gaps and ensure strategic coherence.
- Avoid ambiguity to unlock performance: Poorly scoped roles lead to waste and friction, while clear, well-supported roles drive scalable results and stronger accountability.
