How Merging Engineering Models Can Disrupt What Works And What to Do About It
11 min read
After a recent merger, I was asked to advise an engineering organization that needed to align two very different delivery models.
One part of the organization used small, long-term, cross-functional teams with distributed leadership (self-managed). The other followed a traditional Engineering Manager (EM) model, where one manager handled people, delivery, and agile practices. The company wanted to unify job responsibilities, eliminate performance ambiguity, and ensure fair development opportunities across all teams. The executive leader of the larger organization articulated a clear vision: one company with a single, thoughtfully designed career path built on a foundation of care and respect.
These are worthy goals. I’ve helped lead engineering through nine acquisitions and know firsthand the importance of consistent titles and expectations. But I’ve also learned something else:
“Aligning job titles and responsibilities without fixing team design, architecture, role responsibilities, and delivery structure doesn’t solve the real issues. It just hides them and creates tension and career friction across the division.”
It’s not about being right. It’s about being aligned.
Alignment takes time, planning, and honest conversation.
I’m aligned with the executive leader’s vision: to unify as one company with a shared career path, achieved with care, not urgency. Whether that takes six months or a year and a half, the focus should be on clarity and collaboration, rather than speed.
The real challenge isn’t just structural, it’s cultural. Within the larger organization’s strong-willed leadership team, they have not worked within a self-managed team structure. Fixed perspectives can stall progress if we don’t create space to explore why the models differ, not just how they do. We need to identify the root causes of the structural divergence and assess the potential risks to team culture, autonomy, and product alignment, particularly for high-performing, self-managed teams.
Another point of the executive leader is that integration shouldn’t be imposed; it should evolve at the pace of shared understanding. Once we reach that point, we owe it to the teams to communicate with clarity before information leaks and assumptions or uncertainty take hold. The real challenge arose from the other senior leaders within the group. I won’t say which model is better, as it depends on the context. Instead this article explores the challenges that can occur when we centralize accountability and responsibilities without considering the unique context. It also looks at how well-meaning integration efforts can unintentionally disrupt high-performing teams.
Why This Matters: Fairness vs. Fit
After a merger or acquisition, it’s natural and smart for engineering leaders to unify role definitions, career paths, and performance frameworks. Inconsistent job titles and responsibilities across similar roles can create confusion, slow promotions, and introduce bias. If two managers hold the same title but lead very different types of teams, performance expectations become subjective. That’s not fair to them or to the engineers they support.
So, I understood the goals of the integration effort:
- Establish unified job responsibilities across teams
- Minimize churn, ensuring no team member feels alienated or unsupported during the transition
- And maintain high-performing teams that can support product delivery and operational efficiency
The goals weren’t the problem. The real challenge was the implementation.
How can you use a shared career framework when team structures and responsibilities differ?
The difference in team design and responsibilities is where the challenges of friction and finding solutions began to emerge.
Two Team Models in Contrast
The Engineering Manager Model
In the parent or acquiring organization’s Engineering Manager (EM)- led structure, a single person is responsible for managing people, overseeing delivery, driving agile practices, and partnering with products. EMs are accountable for both team output and individual performance and development. In many cases, they also serve as the technical lead.
Each Engineering Manager (EM) typically works directly with a team of 6-10 softwar engineers. The team does not have a Scrum Master or Agile Coach; the EM is responsible for Agile accountability. Similarly, there is no dedicated QA team member, so quality accountability falls on the EM and the software engineers.
This EM model was framed as a version of the “Iron Triad” or “Iron Triangle,” centered on Engineering, Product, and (presumably) UX or Delivery. However, in practice, the Engineering Manager often became the default source of team process, performance, and planning.
This structure isn’t inherently wrong. It works best when:
- Teams are large and need strong coordination
- The architecture is monolithic or tightly coupled
- Product and engineering require direct managerial alignment
However, when scaled broadly or applied without nuance, it can quickly lead to role overload and reliance on individuals rather than systems to drive outcomes.
The Self-Managed Cross-Functional Model
The smaller teams in the acquired organization followed a different model entirely. These were long-lived, cross-functional teams of 8 to 12 people, including 2-4 software engineers, 1 QA, 1 product manager/owner, and in many cases, agile delivery leads or scrum masters. They had everything they needed to deliver software without needing to coordinate with other teams in most cases.
In this structure:
- Responsibilities are distributed across roles instead of consolidated under a single leader.
- Engineering Managers exist—but act primarily as career coaches and mentors, not team leads.
- Agile delivery is facilitated by dedicated Scrum Masters or Agile Leaders embedded in the team.
- Managers typically oversee 5 to 7 engineers across multiple teams and contribute technically as ICs when appropriate.
These teams naturally align with micro services, subdomains, or product value streams. They work well when the architecture allows for autonomy, and the organization invests in clarity, trust, and lightweight governance.
The acquired organization structured its teams to align with clear architectural boundaries, with each team focused on a specific subdomain or service. This approach made the teams both cross-functional and architecturally cohesive, reflecting Conway’s Law by ensuring the team structure matched the design of the software.
Key Difference: Accountability Consolidation
Both models contain the same essential responsibilities: engineering, product collaboration, quality, and delivery. However, in one, accountability is centralized under a manager, while in the other, it is distributed across the team.
The solution isn’t just about structure. It’s about how tightly the team model mirrors the system it’s building.
Conway’s Law tells us that our software systems mirror our organizational communication structures. When architecture is monolithic or tightly integrated, it makes sense to have centralized accountability. But when architecture is modular and service-oriented, teams that map directly to system boundaries, are small, autonomous, and aligned to subdomains can accelerate delivery and reduce coordination overhead.
And structure doesn’t just affect outcomes, it shapes culture.
In centralized models, decision-making authority and responsibility often rest with the Engineering Manager. This can bring clarity, especially for early-career engineers or less mature teams. But it can also reduce autonomy or create learned dependence, where teams hesitate to act without explicit approval.
In distributed models, autonomy is expected, and with it, psychological safety becomes critical. Teams must feel trusted to make decisions, fail safely, and adjust course without manager intervention. When done well, this fosters ownership and speed. However, without strong role clarity, trust, and support systems can lead to confusion or misalignment.
So, while the surface question is, “What does the Engineering Manager own?” the deeper question is, “Does the team structure support the system architecture and the culture you want to build?”
Where It Breaks: Role Titles vs. Role Expectations
On paper, this integration effort was about consistency: standardizing job titles, aligning role definitions, and applying a shared career framework across teams.
In practice, that consistency masked a deeper misalignment: the same title, Engineering Manager, carried very different expectations depending on the model it came from.
In the Engineering Manager-led model:
- The EM is accountable for people leadership, delivery, agile practice, team velocity, and technical direction.
- There is no embedded Scrum Master or Agile Coach.
- The EM is expected to own outcomes, from sprint or iteration health to individual growth to team throughput.
In the self-managed, cross-functional model:
- The EM is a career manager and mentor, often contributing technically as a senior IC.
- Agile facilitation is handled by a dedicated team member (e.g., Scrum Master, Agile Leader, Agile Delivery Manager).
- Delivery ownership and accountability are shared across the team; no single role “owns” performance.
From the outside, both are “Engineering Managers.” But their responsibilities are fundamentally different. When performance reviews, promotion criteria, and development paths are built around the broader EM model, it disadvantages leaders from the self-managed structure or forces the organization to reshape successful teams just to fit the title.
The concern is that unifying role definitions without accounting for structural context can cause real harm.
That harm doesn’t just affect managers. It ripples through teams.
In EM-led models, where one person is accountable for delivery, agile practice, and performance metrics, teams often defer decisions upward, even when they have the skills and context to act. This dynamic can unintentionally train teams to wait for approval, eroding autonomy and making collaboration feel more performative than empowered.
By contrast, long-lived, self-managed teams tend to develop strong psychological safety over time. With clear boundaries and shared ownership, they solve problems together. However, when leadership begins redefining responsibilities around titles instead of how the team works, even these teams can start to hesitate.
Autonomy suffers not because self-managed models lack structure but because outside systems try to reimpose control where clarity already exists.
The friction isn’t theoretical. It appears in performance evaluations, hiring misalignment, and career planning confusion. Eventually, it reaches the team level where roles blur, ownership is second-guessed, and the structure that supported speed and trust begins to unravel.
Legacy Thinking and Structural Blind Spots
One of the biggest challenges in transformations like this isn’t technical. It’s cultural.
I’ve seen firsthand how legacy thinking, even well-meaning thinking, can shape decisions in ways that unintentionally resist growth. During this engagement, I saw it again.
In our initial conversation regarding team structures, an executive leader for the larger organization made the strategic decision:
“We’re not going to shift 40 teams to the self-managed model. It’s too resource-intensive. The smaller teams will need to align with our Engineering Manager model.”
In a follow-up conversation that I wasn’t part of, a VP from the larger organization said:
“I’ve been using the Engineering Manager model for most of my career. It works.”
These statements weren’t malicious. They were confident, experienced, and full of certainty.
Relying too much on past success can sometimes prevent us from seeing what fits the current situation. What worked earlier in your career or in a different system might not work now. True transformation requires more than confidence. It requires curiosity.
In yet another conversation, I heard secondhand that one of these same leaders, after our first meeting on the topic, asked:
“Has Phil ever been a software engineer?”
That question stuck with me because I wondered how my interest in how software is delivered equates to my technical expertise. While the leader challenged my background (all he had to do was look at my LinkedIn profile or ask for my resume), his comment revealed a mindset: If someone doesn’t share our experience, maybe their perspective doesn’t count.
These moments aren’t about ego. They’re about reflection, about recognizing how deeply personal experience can cloud structural objectivity. When leaders dismiss unfamiliar models because they don’t match their playbook, they don’t just reject ideas. They limit what the organization is allowed to become.
“Great leaders aren’t defined by how long they’ve done something. They’re defined by how often they’re willing to rethink it.”
What Self-Managed Teams Need to Work
To be clear, I’m not arguing that self-managed, cross-functional teams are inherently better. They only work when they’re supported intentionally.
In this case, the acquired teams didn’t stumble into autonomy. They evolved, shaped by architectural changes, growing product complexity, and deliberate investment in role clarity and delivery practices.
Self-managed teams work best when:
- Team boundaries are aligned with system boundaries (Conway’s Law in action)
- Each team has all the roles it needs to deliver independently: product, UX, engineering, QA, agile leadership
- Leadership trusts the team to make decisions and solve problems
- There are clear expectations for ownership, accountability, and feedback loops
- The organization invests in agile coaching and systems thinking, not just delivery metrics
Autonomy is powerful, but it’s not a substitute for structure. It’s a different structure, distributed rather than centralized, but no less rigorous.
When organizations assume self-managed teams can succeed without support, they fail. But when they try to control teams that already have what they need to succeed, they risk breaking what’s working.
If you dismantle a working model to standardize roles without investing in the conditions that made those teams successful, you’re not gaining alignment; you’re sacrificing outcomes.
I see the challenge of finding the right hybrid solution, either in role responsibilities or team structure, during this transition. Only time will tell how these efforts turn out.
A Path Forward
While we started the conversation about picking one model over the other, the next set of conversations should be about understanding what each one needs to succeed and recognizing what might be lost by trying to force one to fit the other’s framework.
In this transition, I’m not advocating for a reversal of the decision. The leadership team has chosen the Engineering Manager model as the long-term structure. My role is to support that transition in a way that minimizes disruption, preserves what’s working, and honors the intent behind the change.
But that doesn’t mean copying a model wholesale. It means asking harder questions:
- Can we implement the EM model without breaking value stream alignment or team autonomy?
- Can we support delivery accountability without assigning an EM to every team if doing so fragments the architecture or inflates management layers?
- Can we evolve role definitions to respect the existing strengths of self-managed teams instead of stripping them out?
I’ve noticed that the most effective organizations aren’t strict about sticking to rigid structures. Instead, they focus on designs that are fit for purpose.
Consider blending elements of both models:
- Some teams may have embedded EMs; others may operate with distributed leadership and shared delivery ownership.
- Agile responsibilities can be flexibly assigned based on team maturity, not hierarchy.
- Career frameworks can accommodate different types of Engineering Managers as long as expectations are clear and fair and performance is measured in context.
You don’t need to choose between alignment and autonomy.
You need to design for both, based on the work, the system, and the people you have.
It isn’t easy; sometimes, a hybrid model might not scale perfectly. However, it’s often a better option than forcing consistency, which can harm results.
Final Reflection: Fit Over Familiarity
At the heart of this transition is a challenge I’ve seen a few times:
How do you unify an organization without undoing what’s already working?
The desire to standardize roles, expectations, and performance frameworks comes from a good place. But when titles are aligned without understanding the structural and cultural context that surrounds them, friction follows, quiet at first, then louder over time.
I’ve spent years helping engineering organizations navigate these types of changes, sometimes from the inside, sometimes as an advisor. And here’s what I’ve learned:
- Job titles are not the problem, misaligned expectations are.
- Structure should reflect system architecture, not management tradition.
- Psychological safety and autonomy aren’t side effects of good teams, they’re preconditions for them.
- Legacy success can cloud future-fit decisions, especially when we assume what worked before must work again.
- Great teams thrive in models that are clear, intentional, and well-supported, whether they are EM-led or self-managed.
There is no perfect model. But there is such a thing as the right model for the moment, the product, and the architecture.
This integration effort isn’t just a structural change, it’s a chance to define what kind of engineering organization this will become.
If we stay curious, focus on outcomes, and respect the conditions that made teams effective to begin with, we can build a unified system that enables scale without sacrificing flow, clarity, or trust.
The outcome of this effort will depend on time and attitudes.
Key Takeaways
- The EM and self-managed models are not interchangeable. Each comes with different responsibilities, accountability structures, and cultural implications.
- Standardizing job titles without context can create unintended harm. Especially when one title represents two very different sets of expectations.
- Misalignment erodes autonomy and psychological safety. Teams work best when they know where decisions live, and are trusted to make them.
- Conway’s Law still applies. If team structure doesn’t mirror system architecture, coordination costs increase and ownership suffers.
- A hybrid approach may be necessary. Especially in the short term, where context, maturity, and system constraints vary across teams.
- You can support a transition while still protecting what works. Integration doesn’t have to mean erasure.
In the end, our goal is to establish clear and unified job responsibilities across teams, minimize churn, and ensure that no team member feels alienated or unsupported during the transition. We aim to build high-performing teams that can deliver on existing commitments while maintaining operational efficiency.
Poking Holes
I invite your perspective on my posts. What are your thoughts?.
Let’s talk: phil.clark@rethinkyourunderstanding.com