Here's something we don't talk about enough in our industry: most of what we call "engineering talent" has very little to do with actual engineering ability.
We've built this whole mythology around coding speed. We worship the 10x programmer, obsess over leetcode performance, and measure everything in story points. But here's the thing, the real divide in engineering isn't about how fast you type.
It's about capability. Some engineers can solve problems that others literally cannot solve, no matter how much time you give them. And that's not a popular thing to say, but after years of building teams and watching projects succeed or fail, it's impossible to ignore.
The capability cliff
Think of engineering talent like a mountain range, not a gentle slope.
Most people assume engineering skill works like a spectrum. Junior folks work slower, senior folks work faster, and everyone can eventually figure out any problem given enough time. That's completely wrong.
Here's what actually happens: There are fundamental capabilities that create hard boundaries between engineers. Either you can debug a complex race condition across multiple services, or you can't. Either you can ship a project that requires architectural changes, or you can't.
Time doesn't bridge these gaps. I've watched engineers spend weeks on problems that others solve in hours. Not because they're slow, but because they lack the mental models to even approach the problem correctly.
Three types of engineers you'll meet
Strong engineers tackle the impossible stuff
These are the folks who don't just write code, they solve the problems that break everyone else.
They can:
- Debug issues that span multiple systems and involve timing problems
- Refactor legacy code without everything exploding
- Ship complex features that need coordination across teams
- Turn vague business requirements into working software
- Make architectural decisions that actually scale
What makes them different: They think in systems, not just code. When someone says "make it faster," they don't start randomly optimizing functions. They figure out what "faster" actually means, find the real bottleneck, and solve the right problem.
Regular engineers keep things running
These engineers form the backbone of most teams. They handle:
- Normal bugs that follow predictable patterns
- Well-defined feature work with clear requirements
- Standard dev environment issues
- Code reviews and documentation
These folks are genuinely valuable. They ship features, fix bugs, and keep systems running reliably. You can count on them to deliver what they commit to, on time and with solid quality. They're not trying to revolutionize anything, they're just doing good, consistent work.
Weak engineers struggle with the basics
This is the uncomfortable part. Some engineers literally cannot complete basic engineering tasks, even after years in the industry.
How they survive through what I call "ghost engineering":
- Constant "pairing" where they do none of the actual work
- Always asking questions in meetings without contributing insights
- Taking credit for collaborative work where others did the heavy lifting
- Creating elaborate processes to avoid actual implementation
The real issue: They lack problem-solving patterns. They can't break down complex problems, can't form hypotheses about what might be wrong, and can't work systematically toward solutions.
Why some engineers improve and others don't
The difference isn't about experience or training. It's about how people approach problem-solving.
Strong engineers:
- Form hypotheses and test them systematically
- Build mental models of how systems behave
- Can work with incomplete information
- Learn from failures and adjust their approach
Weak engineers:
- Try random solutions hoping something works
- Don't understand the systems they're working with
- Need complete specifications for even simple tasks
- Repeat the same mistakes without learning
This explains why some engineers improve rapidly while others plateau, no matter how much time you invest in their development.
Working with different types
With weak engineers:
- Protect your time. Don't do their work for them
- Document everything clearly when you do help
- Alert management if someone consistently can't complete basic tasks
- Don't enable ghost engineering patterns
With regular engineers:
- Give them clear, well-defined problems
- Provide good documentation and context
- Recognize and reward their consistency
With strong engineers:
- Give them the hardest, most ambiguous problems
- Let them shape technical direction and architecture
- Use them to mentor and develop others
Figuring out where you fit
Strong engineers know they're strong. They're the ones teammates come to with hard problems. Others seek their technical opinions and trust their judgment.
Regular engineers complete their work reliably and have areas where they're the go-to person on the team.
Weak engineers often think they're stronger than they are. If you're constantly asking for help, always struggling with basic tasks, or finding excuses for incomplete work, you might be in this category.
What this means for your career
If you're strong: Focus on problems only you can solve. Mentor others, but don't do their work for them.
If you're regular: Get exceptionally good at your strengths. Develop deep expertise in specific areas.
If you're weak: Either develop real engineering capabilities through honest practice and self-assessment, or consider a different career path.
For companies: Structure teams that use each type appropriately. Don't expect weak engineers to become strong ones with more time or training.
The honest truth
Engineering talent was never evenly distributed. Some people can build systems that scale, others can't. Some can debug complex problems, others get stuck on simple issues.
The teams that acknowledge this reality and organize accordingly build better software more efficiently. Those that pretend all engineers are interchangeable keep struggling with predictable results.
It's not about being mean or elitist. It's about being realistic so everyone can do their best work in the right role.
