I've had to work with multiple executives who didn't truly understand the role of an engineer. This isn't a criticism of their intelligence or their business acumen, but an observation of a critical blind spot that can have devastating consequences for a company. This naivety often manifests in one of two common, and equally dangerous, archetypes.
Archetype 1: The Prototype Worshipper
This executive's experience with technology was forged by working directly with a "rockstar" founding engineer who could quickly create working prototypes. These V1s were often unpolished and unable to scale, but they worked, and they were built fast.
The Negative Impact: This experience negatively affects the exec's entire view of engineering. They come to believe that building software is simple and fast, and any engineer stating otherwise is just less skilled. They fundamentally miss the context that a functional prototype is just the first, easiest part. It's a classic application of the Pareto principle (the 80/20 rule): the first 80% of the visible functionality is achieved with just 20% of the total effort.
The final, critical 20% of the product—making it secure, scalable, reliable, and maintainable—is what consumes the other 80% of the effort. This is where the real, complex engineering work happens, and it's the work this executive is completely blind to.
This mindset results in:
- Unrealistic Timelines: Constant pressure on the team to deliver complex, production-ready systems on prototype timelines.
- Dismissal of Expertise: An instinct to ignore crucial feedback from senior engineers about technical debt or architectural limitations.
- Chronic Under-resourcing: A belief that a small team should be able to "just get it done," leading to under-staffing and under-compensation.
Archetype 2: The Disconnected Visionary
This executive often comes from the specific industry their SaaS company is intended to serve. They are a domain expert, but they have no direct experience in technology operations.
The Negative Impact: Their decisions are informed negatively by having only "idea people" in their inner circle. This group regularly proposes clever-sounding solutions for customer problems without any understanding of what is technically possible, scalable, or sustainable. They don't see the long-term liabilities and debt incurred when a solution is implemented with a poor architectural foundation.
This mindset results in:
- False Promises: The executive confidently sells features and timelines to stakeholders that are technically infeasible.
- Inefficient Solutions: The engineering team is handed "solutions" that are convoluted and don't leverage modern best practices.
- Constant Friction: Engineers are consistently put in the position of having to "be the bad guy," resetting expectations with stakeholders late in the process and trying to explain the technical realities that were ignored at the start.
The AI Magnifier
With the advent of automated coding tools, this detachment from fundamental core knowledge is growing. An executive can now ask an AI to generate a functional piece of code in seconds, reinforcing the belief that the work is easy. This further widens the gap between the perceived simplicity of creating code and the immense complexity of building and maintaining a production-grade system.
It is more important than ever for leaders to understand that expectations must be grounded in deep technological expertise. A failure to bridge this gap between vision and reality doesn't just lead to a frustrated engineering team; it leads to broken promises, a failed product, and eventual organizational collapse.