Why Are Engineers So Obsessed With “The Way They Speak”?

We live in a world that operates exactly as it is written. This unwavering professional ethic — our devotion to deterministic logic — might be skewing our perception of human communication, causing us to treat it like a “deliverable” that must be perfected rather than an uncertain, bi-directional process.

Reflecting on my own tendencies, I want to explore this “trap of perfectionism” through two recent episodes from my life as an engineer.

The Manager Obsessed with “Performance”

The first episode occurred during a debriefing after my team met with a client.

As the lead, my manager had handled most of the conversation. I had joined remotely, listening only to the audio. Once the meeting ended, the first thing he said was:

“The way I spoke today wasn’t polished enough. I should have presented it better.”

I asked him a simple question: “Since I was only on audio, I couldn’t see the room. How did the client react? Did they understand? Or did they look confused?”

His reply stayed internal: “That’s just it. I just felt I needed to speak more eloquently.”

His focus wasn’t on the client; it was on his own “performance.”

The Leader Obsessed with “Frameworks”

The second episode happened within a newly formed team — only a week old. While we were discussing our workflow, the leader criticized my communication style.

“When you speak, you must follow the correct order: first the premise, then the high-level overview, and finally the details. That is the only right way to communicate.”

As a rule for a formal presentation, he was right. However, we weren’t giving a presentation; we were tentatively trying to align our understanding.

If there was anything to point out, it shouldn’t have been the “order of my words.” It should have been the “distance between us” — a simple check-in: “Are we still on the same page?”

A Meeting Is Not a Presentation

What these two episodes share is a characteristic engineering obsession: the pursuit of perfection on the “sender’s side.”

But let’s be clear: a business meeting is not a presentation.

A flawless, gap-free delivery does not guarantee a mutually satisfying conclusion. The protagonist of communication is never the sender; it is always the receiver.

To take it to an extreme: even if your delivery is clumsy, if you both end up understanding the same thing and reach an agreement, the process is a success. In the journey toward a “contract” or “consensus,” the eloquence of the speech is secondary.

Why We Search for “Bugs” in Our Speech

Why are engineers so preoccupied with their way of speaking?

It’s because we spend our days dealing with things that move exactly as described. If something doesn’t work as expected, we assume the method was wrong, or the description (the code) was flawed. We are conditioned by this “logic of self-responsibility.”

In a closed world where we work alone, reducing bugs and writing maintainable code is our mission. It is our pride.

However, in human relationships, there are too many variables beyond our control: the other person’s background, their level of technical knowledge, their mood, or the existing rapport between you.

Even if an engineer polishes their “speaking style” to perfection, if they ignore the variables on the other side, the probability of reaching a satisfying agreement remains low.

Choose “Resonant Exchange” Over a “Perfect Hand”

Instead of withdrawing into ourselves to craft a perfect performance, we must strive to understand the other person’s context.

“Which of the cards in my hand is closest to the ‘right answer’ for them right now?”

I believe that this “exchange” — adjusting your cards based on the other person’s reaction — is what truly elevates mutual satisfaction.

I am still a work in progress. I have been told repeatedly that my questions are “too abstract” and difficult to answer. I realized that I unconsciously wish to hear the other person’s “interpretation” rather than a simple yes or no. This might be a selfish way of asking that puts a high load on the listener.

While acknowledging my own habits, I want to stop looking inward at my “speaking style” and be more sincere toward what we are building together on the outside.

I want to build from scratch, every time.