Joe Gaebel

The '10x engineer' is a dangerous myth that actively harms technical leadership and team growth. As senior leaders, our real job isn't to be the smartest person in the room, but to make everyone else smarter. Chasing individual 'rockstars' might deliver short-term bursts, but it inevitably leads to burnout, knowledge silos, and fractured teams. It valorizes individual heroics over the systemic improvements that truly drive sustainable progress. This mindset often overlooks the crucial work of mentorship, process refinement, and infrastructure building that underpins high-performing organizations. True technical leadership is about *amplification*. It's about designing systems, cultures, and processes that elevate *everyone's* output. Instead of measuring individual contributions, let's focus on: 1. **Enabling psychological safety:** So every voice feels heard and valued. 2. **Fostering knowledge sharing:** Breaking down silos and building collective intelligence. 3. **Mentorship and growth paths:** Investing in the development of *all* engineers. 4. **Removing systemic blockers:** Paving the way for consistent, collective velocity. When we shift our focus from individual 'heroics' to collective amplification, we create exponentially more impact and a far more resilient, innovative engineering culture. How are you redefining technical success within your teams to move beyond the 10x myth? #TechLeadership #EngineeringCulture #SoftwareEngineering #TeamAmplification #LeadershipDevelopment #Beyond10x #TechLeadership #SoftwareEngineering

1

I was speaking with a CTO of a fast-growing product company. Their pipelines were fast. Their automation was strong. Their team was sharp. But still… releases were getting delayed. Not because of code. Not because of bugs. Because of test data. 1) Inconsistent datasets 2) Missing edge cases 3) Privacy and compliance concerns 4) Time wasted generating and managing data And that’s when it hit me again… Test Data Management is one of the most underestimated bottlenecks in modern testing pipelines. We talk about AI. We talk about automation. We talk about performance. But without the right data, even the best testing strategy falls apart. At KiwiQA Services , we are seeing this pattern across enterprises — especially those building data-driven and AI-powered products. The complexity is real. And the impact is massive. If you are building products where data is at the core, you cannot afford to ignore this layer. Curious to learn more? Read here: https://lnkd.in/g5-cRbMs And if you are going through this challenge or building something tough where quality truly matters Let’s talk. We would love to help you build confidence into your testing strategy. #Testing #AI #QualityEngineering #TestData #KiwiQA #SoftwareTesting #Automation #DataDriven

8

Upgrade Your React / Next.js Applications - Vulnerability (CVE-2025-66478) Many small and large companies across Australia are rapidly adopting React and Next.js. If you're currently using React, now is the time to ensure your application is upgraded and secure. Upgrading can be costly for large organisations—especially those with multiple micro Next.js applications across different teams. Development, testing, and deployment efforts all add up. However, strong automation (CI/CD, E2E Test) and the use of monorepo tooling (Turborepo, Nx) can significantly reduce these costs and streamline the upgrade process. Affected Next.js Versions Applications using React Server Components with the App Router are affected when running: Next.js 15.x Next.js 16.x Next.js 14.3.0-canary.77 and later canary releases Next.js 13.x, Next.js 14.x stable, Pages Router applications, and the Edge Runtime are not affected. More information: https://lnkd.in/gs_YMjPn

4

The $175K DevOps Unicorn Myth Is Killing Your Team Confession that might sting: I keep seeing brilliant DevOps engineers walk away. Not because of money. Not because of tech. Because they’re asked to be everything to everyone. No? The brutal truth in NZ right now: We’re asking DevOps to be: • Kubernetes wizards • Security experts • Cost-cutting pros • On-call heroes All for one salary. Then we act surprised when they burn out or jump to Australia for 40% more. What’s actually broken: • 88% of job ads demand Terraform. • But only 15% of candidates have real production-level Terraform skills. So everyone chases the same tiny pool of “perfect” unicorns. Meanwhile, strong engineers who could learn in 3 months with mentorship get overlooked. The retention pattern I hear from tech leaders: They describe their DevOps team as a “revolving door.” Common reasons? → Roles written for breadth, not depth → 24/7 on-call with no backup → No growth paths What the smart companies do differently: 1. Stop hunting unicorns. One NZ bank hired a Python-strong engineer with basic K8s and trained them up. Retention jumped to 18 months vs the 11-month average. 2. Fix on-call. An Auckland fintech built proper SRE practices (error budgets, post-mortems). Turnover dropped 60% in 6 months. 3. Create specialization paths. Let engineers choose: Infra, Security, or Platform. People stay when they can go deep, not just wide. The economics driving engineers away: • 28% of DevOps pros in NZ are considering overseas moves. • Australia is absorbing 90% of ICT migrants with salaries at AUD $180–220K (vs NZ $130–150K). But it’s not only about money. It’s about escaping the “do-everything” trap. The opportunity hiding in plain sight: Instead of chasing unicorns: • Tap platform engineers moving from dev • Tap sysadmins ready to learn IaC • Tap cloud architects hungry for DevOps These hires + training = loyal teams. Challenge for you: Look at your DevOps JD. If it lists more than 3 skill buckets, you’re part of the problem. Fix is simple: • Pick 2–3 core techs that matter most • Build growth paths • Train instead of demanding perfection • Implement real SRE practices Why I’m sharing this: Because I’m tired of watching brilliant engineers burn out. And of hearing “we can’t find good DevOps people” on repeat. The talent is here. The demand is real. The approach is broken. Want to see which Auckland companies have cracked DevOps retention? → DM me “retention” and I’ll share what they’re doing. Because the best strategy isn’t chasing unicorns. It’s creating environments where good engineers become great ones. P.S. If you’re a #DevOps engineer nodding along: you deserve better than being “everything.” Those better roles exist, you just need to know where to look. ♻️ If this hit home, repost so more leaders stop chasing unicorns and start building real DevOps teams.

44

39 Comments

Testing code and ensuring quality is an essential but often overlooked aspect of delivering software. Looking forward to hearing interesting insights on this at NZ Tech Rally in Wellington in May.

10

What QF32 Taught Me About Leading Dev Teams During Chaos. In 2010, Qantas Flight 32 (VH-OQA), an Airbus A380, suffered an uncontained engine explosion shortly after takeoff. It crippled multiple systems including hydraulics, fuel, flight controls, and more. The crew faced over 60 cascading alerts. They didn’t panic. They didn’t guess. They landed the plane safely with 469 people on board. Why does this matter to us in dev? Because this was a masterclass in incident response. Every dev team should aim to operate at that level under pressure. Here’s what QF32 taught me about leading through failures: 🧠 Know your systems: The crew didn’t just follow procedures, they understood them. We need the same depth of knowledge in our platforms. 🧊 Stay calm, speak in facts: No panic, no noise. "What do we know right now" beats "Why did this happen" every time. 🧭 Assign roles clearly: The crew had defined responsibilities. So should your team during an incident. Who’s leading, fixing, communicating. ✅ Cross-check critical decisions: They verified every major action. So should we, especially when hot fixing or rolling back. 📋 Debrief to learn, not blame: Qantas shared everything. We should too. Focus on process gaps, not pointing fingers. Strong teams aren’t perfect. They’re prepared, and they keep improving. Want your team to handle production fires the way QF32 handled an engine explosion? Practice. Communicate. Own it. Improve.

6

1 Comment

Melbourne (and beyond) — our April 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗔𝗜 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀 Meetup is headlined by 𝗔𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗰'𝘀 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁, and it's a must for anyone building or leading software teams right now. We're unpacking 8 trends reshaping how software gets built in 2026: ✅ Where engineering teams are seeing the greatest productivity gains today ✅ Why effective AI collaboration still requires active human judgment ✅ Eight trends defining how software is built in 2026 Agentic coding isn't just a productivity story — it's a fundamental shift in how software gets conceived, built, and shipped. PLUS: a special instructor-led creative AI walkthrough We're going end-to-end: song idea → lyrics → full track → music video, using modern generative AI tools. 🎙️ Prompting + iteration in Suno (structure, hooks, tone, vocal style) 🎬 Building a consistent visual narrative in VidMuse (storyboard, scenes, pacing) 🎥 Here's the final clip we'll be unpacking on the night: https://lnkd.in/ghR_GsUP Two agendas. One evening. Real insights, live demos, Q&A, and drinks after! 📅 April 2 | 6:00–8:00 PM AEDT 📍 The Dock, Docklands, Melbourne (+ global live stream for EU & US) Grab your spot 👇 https://lnkd.in/gvFJUG2e #GenAI #AgenticCoding #CreativeAI #Anthropic #Claude #AITrends2026 #Suno #VidMuse #GenAIforDevelopers #MelbourneTech #BuildWi

10

🧩 🇦🇺 Hard truth for growing Australian businesses 🧩 Technology problems rarely appear as big failures. They show up as everyday friction: 🧩 Disconnected systems 🔧 Recurring small tech issues ⏳ Slow tools & workflows 📉 Hidden operational delays Nothing looks seriously broken. Yet productivity quietly suffers. Growth feels harder. Teams move slower. Operations feel heavier. Most businesses don’t need more software. They need: ✅ Stable systems ✅ Faster technical execution ✅ Reliable ongoing support Because business momentum is fragile — and friction compounds fast. 🔗 Link in comments #AustralianBusiness 🇦🇺 #AustralianSMEs #BusinessGrowth #ITSupport #BusinessOperations #DigitalInfrastructure

5

1 Comment

Most engineers talk about architecture principles. Few actually build systems that follow them. I've seen this gap at Tipalti, at Mecca Brands, and in every codebase I've inherited. Teams write code that works today. Then traffic doubles. Or requirements change. Or someone leaves. And everything falls apart. The difference between systems that work in production vs. systems that work in demos? Five principles: 🔧 Scalability - Handle growth without rewriting everything 📊 Manageability - Debug and fix issues in minutes, not hours 🧩 Modularity - Change one part without breaking everything 🔌 Extensibility - Add features without touching existing code ✅ Testability - Deploy on Fridays with confidence I just wrote a deep dive on how to actually implement these principles, with real examples from systems I've built and systems I've fixed. Not theory. Practical trade-offs and decisions. Read it here: https://lnkd.in/eaAtpGrU Which principle have you ignored that came back to bite you? Share your war stories below 👇

2

The best Engineers don’t wait around, so neither should your hiring process. In the current Adelaide talent market, speed isn’t just an advantage, it’s the difference between securing top talent and losing them to a faster competitor. What the data tells us: - 10–14 days, that’s how quickly top engineers are typically snapped up once they start looking for their next role Indeed - Companies that streamline hiring cut time-to-hire by 37% and boost quality of hire by 22% LinkedIn Talent Insights - Engineering roles remain some of the most in demand on SEEK, meaning slow hiring isn’t an option if you want the best. Our advice to clients: Fast doesn’t mean careless. It means building a process that’s structured, decisive, and candidate friendly. Clear role expectations, and empowered hiring managers = faster hires without compromising quality. In recruitment, the fastest employer doesn’t just hire first, they hire best. As a business you only get one change to make a first impression, so be swift to secure the right engineers before the competition does. #engineers #recruitment #adelaide

30

4 Comments

A lot of good people got caught up in the recent Atlassian lay-offs. Not only developers but also marketing, project management etc. I've never worked for Atlassian directly, but having worked in the Atlassian Ecosystem for 17 years, I do know the calibre of people they employ. There's talent there just waiting to be bagged for your organisations. It's worth specifically looking for those ex-Atlassian's who are "open to work" right now. Just saying.

27

Slow CI pipelines. Flaky tests. More coverage but bugs still slip through. https://lnkd.in/gMZGHbeA James Hill's presentation at Testing Talks Melbourne breaks down the inflection points that matter most when scaling testing infrastructure: - When investing in observability starts paying off. - How you speed up feedback loops without increasing risk. - What teams running thousands of builds daily do differently. Worth watching if it feels like your test suite is slowing you down.

6

I've been asked about Copilot a few times now - specifically how to implement it safely within their environment. Three tiers. Different costs. And most Kiwi businesses are guessing which one actually makes sense. Here's the breakdown: **Microsoft 365 Copilot** – $45 NZD per user/month The full package. Works across Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Teams, Outlook. This is where you get proper AI assistance that actually understands your business context. Data security here is enterprise-grade. Your company data stays within your Microsoft 365 tenant, protected by your existing security policies. Prompts and responses aren't used to train Microsoft's models. You get full compliance coverage—SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR. IT admins keep complete control over permissions and access. **Copilot Pro** – $33 NZD per user/month Consumer-grade version. Decent for individuals, but lacks the enterprise integration and data security controls most businesses need. Here's where it gets dicey for business use. Data handling follows consumer privacy standards, not enterprise compliance frameworks. Your interactions may be used to improve Microsoft's services. No centralised admin controls. If someone's working with client data or sensitive information, this tier isn't appropriate. **Copilot (Free)** – $0 This tier is included with Microsoft 365 subscriptions, so your users likely already have access to it. Basic chat functionality. Limited features. You get what you pay for. Data security is minimal. Conversations are stored and may be used for model training. No business-grade encryption or compliance guarantees. Fine for general queries, but absolutely not for anything touching company or client information. The trap? Rolling out the $45 version to everyone. Not every role needs full Copilot. Your finance team crunching data in Excel? Absolutely. Someone who lives in Outlook and barely touches spreadsheets? Probably not. But there's a second trap: letting people use Free or Pro versions with company data because you're trying to save money. The security gap isn't worth it. And since the Free tier is already included with M365, users may already be accessing it without IT oversight. The sharpest operators are mapping licences to actual workflow, not job titles. They're running 90-day pilots with 5-10 users, measuring time saved, then scaling strategically. 👉 Worth asking yourself: Are you buying licences based on what sounds good… or what actually optimises cost versus productivity while keeping your data properly protected?

18

1 Comment

Most senior software engineers in Australia are underpaid by $30-50k. Not because they lack the skill. Because the market can't see their seniority. After years coaching engineers, my take is this: The engineers who move up fastest aren’t always the strongest, they’re the easiest to trust from the outside.. Here are 4 mistakes that cost senior engineers money, scope, and access to the roles they actually deserve. 1. Confusing experience with evidence. "10 years of backend development" could mean you designed distributed systems serving millions of users at Atlassian. Or it could mean you maintained the same internal service at a mid-tier consultancy for a decade. From the outside, those look identical. Hiring managers don't hire time served. They hire demonstrated impact. What changed because you were there? What scale did you operate at? If your CV doesn't answer those questions in the first minute or so, you're being assessed below your level. 2. Describing work instead of results. I see this constantly. Resumes that read like task logs. "Built APIs. Worked on microservices. Maintained infrastructure." That shows activity. It doesn't show seniority. A Staff Engineer at Canva isn't measured by what tools they used. They're measured by business impact, system risk, and decision ownership. The fix is consequences, not duties. Reduced latency by 40%. Owned the migration strategy that unblocked delivery for 3 squads. If nothing changed because of your work, it doesn't read as senior enough. 3. Disappearing inside the team. "We built..." "Our team implemented..." "We migrated..." Strong engineers are collaborative. But at senior and Staff levels, companies need to know who drove the decisions, handled the trade-offs, and carried accountability. I worked with an engineer in Melbourne last year. Brilliant. Led the rearchitecture of a core payments service at a Series C fintech. His resume said "contributed to platform improvements." You can honour the team and still show leadership. "I led the architecture decisions." "I owned the migration strategy." These aren't arrogant. They're accurate. 4. Assuming the process will discover your value. A lot of engineers expect interviews to infer that you know your craft. In my experience, that's not how it works. They can only make a decision based on the hour you had and the signals they got. Everything else is guessing. If your impact requires explanation, context, or insider knowledge to understand, a weaker but clearer candidate will move ahead of you. Here's the question I'd sit with: 📌 If someone who has never met you looked at your profile for 60 seconds, what evidence would convince them you operate at your target level? In this market, your resume, LinkedIn, and first 90 seconds must make your value obvious, because if people have to figure it out, they may never see how capable you are. Hit 👍 if this resonated, it lets me know and helps it reach others who might need it.

19

4 Comments

Auckland software folk, I'm giving a talk next week on how to assess platform maturity without overcomplicating it. I’ll walk through a zero 0️⃣ to 3️⃣ scale we've used with teams to figure out where they are, where they’re stuck, and what’s next (or what’s not). If you're in the platform space and want something useful, to help design, trouble or manage long-term, come along. Darshit Pandya Stuart Collins Paul Meyrick #platform-engineering-nz https://lnkd.in/gG5P7Sa8

49

9 Comments

using System; using System.Threading; class Program { static void Main() { // Wellington .NET hype machine var chant = "𝗗𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗟𝗢𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗦! "; var hype = 1; var maxHype = 4; for (int i = 1; i <= maxHype; i++) { Console.ForegroundColor = i switch { 1 => ConsoleColor.White, 2 => ConsoleColor.Cyan, 3 => ConsoleColor.Yellow, _ => ConsoleColor.Red }; var line = string.Concat(new string[4].Select(_ => chant)).TrimEnd(); Console.WriteLine(line.ToUpper()); Console.WriteLine($"Sweat level: {new string('💧', i)}"); Console.WriteLine(); Thread.Sleep(500 - (i * 80)); // getting increasingly hyped up hype++; } Console.ResetColor(); Console.WriteLine("Alright, now the actual ad:\n"); var ad = @" For the next six months, I’m going to be head-deep in the .NET market in Wellington. 🤘 I’m working with a bunch of SaaS teams right now: some scaling fast, others modernising older systems, all doing interesting work with C#, .NET, Azure, and API-heavy products. There’s a real mix of opportunities out there, from early-stage teams to established SaaS businesses, but the common thread is the same: they want engineers who enjoy solving hard problems and shaping the way products get built. If you’re a .NET engineer and want to know what’s happening across the market: who’s hiring, what stacks they’re using, where the best challenges are, I'd love to talk. Take a squizz at the one I've just posted today: https://lnkd.in/eEbhpqwb Feel free to get in touch if you want to chat about what’s out there. 📥 "; Console.WriteLine(ad); Console.WriteLine("#dotnet #csharp #wellingtontech #developers #hiring"); } }

7

Come catch my session on Context Engineering at DDD Melbourne this Saturday. We've all been there: GitHub Copilot promises to be your coding companion, but instead feels more like that overeager intern who confidently writes brilliant code for the wrong problem. As AI-assisted development tools become ubiquitous, the industry narrative promises revolutionary productivity gains. Yet many practitioners find themselves playing an exhausting game of context whack-a-mole—constantly explaining, re-explaining, and fixing what their AI "partner" confidently got wrong. Having spent considerable time wrestling with this gap between AI promises and reality, I've discovered that the real challenge isn't prompt engineering—it's context engineering. This talk explores why "vibe coding" is fundamentally broken and introduces the systematic discipline that separates magical AI experiences from expensive disappointments. Through the constraint-context matrix and real examples like the Breadcrumb Protocol, I'll demonstrate why human expertise in scaffolding, steering, and domain understanding isn't just relevant—it's the secret ingredient that makes AI actually work. You'll leave with practical strategies for engineering context systematically and a framework for building sustainable human-AI collaboration that leverages both your skills and the machine's capabilities.

48

2 Comments