I've worked with engineers who had senior titles but didn't lead anyone. I've also worked with junior engineers who mentored half the team. The difference wasn't in their resume or their technical depth; it was in how they approached their work, their growth, and their responsibility to others.
Leadership and mentorship in software development aren't granted by org charts. They emerge from patterns of behavior that compound over time. Here are the questions that reveal those characteristics.
1. Do You Accumulate Experience or Repeat It?
There's a difference between ten years of experience and one year of experience repeated ten times. Repeating experience means doing the same work year after year, measuring tenure rather than growth. You master a domain, then stay there. The work feels comfortable because you've solved these problems before.
Accumulating experience means building new capabilities, taking on broader responsibilities, and establishing feedback loops for yourself and your team. You master a domain, then stretch into adjacent challenges. The discomfort signals learning.
Leaders are builders in both senses. They create opportunities for others while advancing their own skills. Even when deeply focused on technical work, they enable team growth by making their knowledge accessible, their decisions transparent, and their expertise transferable.
2. "It Works" vs. "Is This Good?"
Everyone starts with "it works because it's not broken." Many developers stay there indefinitely, measuring success by the absence of production incidents. But leaders evolve past this baseline.
The shift happens when you start taking accountability for code quality after deployment. The code shipped, the tests passed, and no one is complaining. Most developers stop there. Leaders keep asking "Is this good?" even when everything seems fine.
This isn't perfectionism or over-engineering. It's recognizing that quality isn't the absence of complaints; it's the presence of standards. Production stability is necessary but insufficient. Leaders evaluate maintainability, clarity, and performance characteristics. They ask whether the code reflects the understanding the team has today rather than the understanding they had when they started.
3. Do You Seek Questions You Don't Yet Know to Ask?
There's a maturity shift that happens when developers stop relying solely on what they already know to evaluate their work. Early in your career, you ask questions to fill knowledge gaps: "How do I implement this feature?" or "What's the right pattern here?" These are important, but they're bounded by what you already understand.
Leaders develop a different instinct. They assume there are critical questions they haven't thought to ask yet. They seek out perspectives that challenge their assumptions. They recognize that the most dangerous gaps aren't the known unknowns; they're the unknown unknowns.
This shows up in reviews, design discussions, and retrospectives. Instead of defending your choices, you probe for what you might have missed.
Do you ask "What am I not seeing?" or "Do you see any issues?" One question invites discovery; the other invites validation.
4. Does Quality Approve Your Work, or Does Approval Define Quality?
Just because no one flagged your code doesn't mean it's quality work. Just because it shipped doesn't mean it's right.
Leaders maintain standards independent of external validation. They critique their own work, seek improvement opportunities, and build systems that reward quality over mere completion. The approval process exists to catch mistakes, not to define quality. If the only reason your code is good is that reviewers didn't reject it, you're outsourcing accountability.
5. Do You Build Others to Build Better Products?
The most effective technical leaders understand something fundamental: we learn by teaching. When you mentor less experienced developers, you're not just being generous with your time; you're creating the conditions for your own growth.
This creates compound growth. As junior developers learn to handle the work you do today, you create space to tackle the challenges your leaders face. As they grow, you grow. You're not delegating to save time; you're building organizational capability while advancing your own.
The distinction matters. Great engineers solve hard problems while great leaders create engineers who solve hard problems. One scales linearly with your own capacity, the other scales with the team's capacity. Mentorship isn't a nice-to-have activity you do when you have spare cycles; it's a core responsibility that determines whether you're writing code or building systems, working alone or multiplying impact.
What Leadership Means
Leadership in software development isn't granted by titles or org charts. It emerges from how you approach your work and your relationships with others. The engineers who elevate their teams share common patterns: they accumulate experience rather than repeat it, they maintain quality standards independent of external validation, they actively seek gaps in their understanding, and they build others while building systems.
These characteristics compound over time. An engineer who mentors junior developers creates space for their own growth. An engineer who questions their own assumptions catches problems earlier. An engineer who takes accountability for quality after deployment builds more robust systems. The result isn't just better code; it's stronger teams and healthier organizations.
None of this requires permission. You don't need a promotion to mentor someone, to ask better questions, or to hold yourself to higher standards. Leadership starts with how you show up to your work every day.
Top comments (0)