The skill gap between senior and staff-level engineers is communication, not technical ability. Engineers at staff level and above spend 50 to 70% of their time communicating: in design reviews, cross-functional meetings, stakeholder presentations, mentoring sessions, and written proposals. The engineers who advance fastest aren't necessarily the best coders. They're the ones who can explain their work clearly enough to influence decisions.
If you're an engineer who's been told "you need to be more visible" or "you should speak up more in meetings," the issue is almost always verbal communication. Your technical work is solid. Your ability to articulate that work to others is the bottleneck.
Why Do Engineers Struggle with Verbal Communication?
Because engineering culture rewards precision and completeness over brevity, and those values invert when you start talking. In code, completeness is a virtue. Every edge case handled, every parameter documented, every dependency noted. In speech, completeness is a liability. It produces five-minute explanations when 30 seconds would have landed the point.
The engineer's specific communication challenges:
Information dumping. Starting from the technical foundation and building up to the conclusion, when the listener only needs the conclusion and maybe one layer of supporting detail.
Assuming context. Using acronyms, referencing internal systems, and assuming the listener has the same mental model you do.
Over-explaining. Adding caveats, edge cases, and technical nuance that are relevant in code reviews but irrelevant in a product meeting.
Skipping the "so what." Describing what you built without connecting it to why it matters. "I refactored the authentication service to use JWT" tells an engineer everything. It tells a product manager nothing.
These aren't character flaws. They're the natural result of spending years in an environment where precision and completeness are the primary communication values. Adapting to contexts where conciseness and impact-framing matter more is a learnable skill.
What Is the Zoom Out Then In Framework?
Start with impact and context (zoom out), then go technical only if asked (zoom in). This reverses the natural engineer instinct to start at the implementation level and work upward.
Most engineers explain things bottom-up:
"So I looked at the database query performance and noticed that the join on the users table was doing a full table scan because the index on the email column had been dropped in the last migration. I rebuilt the index and added a compound index on email and created_at, which brought the query time from 3.2 seconds down to 45 milliseconds."
That's accurate. It's also incomprehensible to the product manager who asked "why was the dashboard slow?"
Zoom Out, Then In version:
"The dashboard was slow because of a database issue. I fixed it. Load times dropped from 3 seconds to under 50 milliseconds. If you want the technical details, the root cause was a missing database index from our last deployment."
Same information. The first three sentences give the listener everything they need. The last sentence offers the technical layer for anyone who wants it. Most won't.
The Zoom Out, Then In framework has three levels:
Level 1 (Impact, 10 seconds): What changed and why it matters. "Dashboard load times dropped 98%."
Level 2 (Mechanism, 15 seconds): How you achieved it, in non-technical terms. "A database optimization fixed a query that was searching every user record instead of looking up the right one directly."
Level 3 (Implementation, as needed): Technical details, available on request. "The join on the users table was doing a full scan due to a dropped index. I rebuilt it and added a compound index."
Start at Level 1. Only go deeper if asked. Most business stakeholders need Level 1 and occasionally Level 2. Other engineers might want Level 3. Calibrating to your audience is the skill.
How Should Engineers Communicate in Standups?
The 30-Second Update: what you finished, what you're doing, and what's blocking you. That's it. No technical deep-dives, no architecture discussions, no debugging narratives. Standups are status checks, not problem-solving sessions.
A good standup update:
"Yesterday I finished the API endpoint for user preferences. Today I'm starting the frontend integration. No blockers."
Twelve seconds. Every teammate knows your status. If they need details, they'll ask after standup.
A common standup mistake:
"So yesterday I was working on the user preferences API and I ran into this issue with the serialization layer because the nested objects weren't being properly deserialized by the middleware, so I had to write a custom deserializer, and then I also noticed that the validation schema was outdated so I updated that too, and then I started looking at the frontend but realized the design specs hadn't been updated for the new component library, so I messaged Sarah about that..."
Ninety seconds. Half the team stopped listening after fifteen. The technical detail belongs in a PR description or a Slack thread.
The Standup Rule: if your update takes longer than 30 seconds, you're including information that belongs elsewhere. Keep it to impact and status. Save details for the right forum.
How Do Engineers Explain Technical Concepts to Non-Technical People?
Lead with the analogy, then add precision. Non-technical stakeholders need to understand what something does and why it matters. They don't need to understand how it works at the implementation level.
The Analogy-First approach:
Bad: "We need to migrate from a monolithic architecture to microservices so we can scale horizontally and deploy independently."
Good: "Right now our system is one big machine. If any part breaks, everything stops. We want to split it into independent pieces that can be updated and scaled separately. Like going from one giant printer to a network of smaller ones, so when one needs maintenance, everything else keeps running."
The analogy gives the listener a mental model. Once they have the model, you can add technical precision: "The engineering term for this is microservices. Each piece handles one function and communicates with the others through APIs."
Three rules for technical explanations:
- State the problem before the solution. "Customers are seeing 5-second load times" before "We need to add caching."
- Use concrete numbers. "This saves 3 seconds per page load" is better than "This improves performance."
- Connect to business outcomes. "Faster load times reduce our bounce rate, which means more users complete checkout."
How Should Engineers Speak in Design Reviews?
Present trade-offs, not just solutions. Design reviews are decision-making meetings. The most effective contributors frame their input as trade-off analysis rather than advocacy for a single approach.
The Trade-Off Template:
"We have two viable approaches. Option A uses X, which gives us Y benefit but has Z limitation. Option B uses P, which gives us Q benefit but has R limitation. My recommendation is Option A because [specific reason tied to project priorities]."
This template works because it shows you've considered alternatives (demonstrating thoroughness), presents both options fairly (demonstrating objectivity), and states your recommendation with a reason (demonstrating decisiveness).
The common engineering mistake in design reviews: presenting only your preferred solution as if no alternatives exist. This puts the reviewer in the position of either accepting your approach or generating alternatives themselves. Presenting trade-offs makes the decision easier for everyone and positions you as a thoughtful technical leader.
Structuring your contributions with explicit trade-offs is one of the highest-leverage communication habits for engineers seeking staff-level impact.
How Do Engineers Improve Communication for Interviews?
Practice the STAR method out loud, and lead every answer with the business impact. Engineering interview communication fails when candidates describe what they built without explaining why it mattered.
"I built a caching layer using Redis." ← Technical but incomplete.
"I reduced API latency by 80% by implementing a Redis caching layer, which directly improved our checkout conversion rate by 12%." ← Impact-first, then technical.
The Interview Speaking Stack works especially well for engineers: structure your answer (STAR format), keep it concise (under 90 seconds), and deliver with confidence (no hedging on your contributions).
Engineer-specific interview speaking tips:
- Use "I" not "we" when describing your individual contribution. Interviewers are evaluating you.
- Quantify everything. Engineers love precision, and so do interviewers.
- State your decision-making process, not just the outcome. "I chose Redis over Memcached because we needed persistence and data structures beyond key-value."
- Keep system design explanations to 3 minutes maximum before checking in: "Should I go deeper on any of these components?"
How Do Engineers Practice Speaking?
Treat speaking improvement like a codebase you can refactor: identify the bugs, write tests (record yourself), fix one thing at a time, and ship iteratively.
Engineers tend to respond well to systematic, measurable approaches to skill-building. The Practice Stack method maps naturally to an engineering mindset:
-
Profile your bugs. Record yourself in a meeting or answering a question. Identify your top three communication issues (probably: too long, too technical, too many fillers).
-
Write a test. Set a measurable goal: "Answer any question in under 60 seconds" or "Zero fillers in a 30-second answer."
-
Fix one at a time. Spend one week on conciseness. The next on structure. The next on fillers. Don't try to optimize everything simultaneously.
-
Ship and iterate. Use the improved skill in a real meeting. Note what worked and what didn't. Adjust your practice for the next cycle.
Most engineers who adopt this systematic approach see measurable improvement within two to three weeks. The engineers who struggle are the ones who try to "just be better at communicating" without identifying specific, measurable targets.
Key Takeaway
Engineering communication improves when you invert your instincts: Zoom Out, Then In (impact first, technical details on request), keep standup updates to 30 seconds (what you finished, what you're doing, what's blocking), and lead with analogies for non-technical audiences. The skill gap between senior and staff-level engineers is verbal communication, and it's trainable using the same systematic approach engineers apply to any other skill: identify specific issues, set measurable goals, practice deliberately, and iterate.
FAQs
Is communication really the difference between senior and staff engineer?
At most companies, yes. The technical bar for staff-level engineers is high, but the differentiator at that level is influence: the ability to shape technical direction, align cross-functional teams, and communicate complex ideas clearly to diverse audiences. These are all speaking skills. Survey data from engineering leadership consistently ranks communication as the top gap between senior and staff-level engineers.
How do I speak up more in meetings without seeming like I'm just talking to talk?
Apply the value-add test before speaking: "Will this change the group's understanding or decision?" If yes, speak. Use the Point-Proof-Stop method: make one specific point, support it with one piece of evidence, stop. You'll contribute meaningfully without padding the discussion.
How do I explain a complex system in a job interview?
Start at the highest level of abstraction: "This system does X for Y users." Then describe 3-4 major components and how they interact. Then offer to dive deeper: "Which component would you like me to detail?" This top-down approach lets the interviewer guide the depth, and it demonstrates that you can communicate at multiple levels of abstraction.
Build the communication skills that accelerate your engineering career. Download Wellspoken