Outcome-First Engineering - Code Is Not the Goal, Changing Reality Is

Outcome-First Engineering: Code Is Not the Goal; Changing Reality Is

There is a quiet tragedy happening in a lot of engineering teams.

You ask a developer, “What are you trying to achieve with this task?”

And the answer almost always comes back as code:

“I need to create a function that does X.”
“I’m trying to migrate this data from A to B.”
“I’m stuck integrating this API.”

Notice what’s missing.

No user.
No outcome.
No change in reality.

The goal became “make the code work” instead of “solve the right problem.”

The moment the objective becomes code, the problem is already lost

Most teams don’t intend to think this way.
It happens slowly.

We adopt agile.
We write user stories.
We create a “Definition of Done.”

Somewhere along the way, Done quietly replaces Solved.

On paper, everything is green.

Meanwhile:

We “delivered the feature.”
We just didn’t change reality in the way that mattered.

That’s the core disease I want to attack.

A simple conversation that reveals everything

I’ve had this conversation many times:

“You look stuck. What’s your objective here?”

And I get answers like:

All of these are valid tasks.
But none of them are real objectives.

They are descriptions of what their hands are doing, not what their mind is aiming at.

Contrast that with a different kind of answer:

Now we’re talking about reality.

We’re talking about outcomes.

Code is still required.
But it becomes a tool, not the target.

When Definition of Done kills Definition of Solved

Product managers love a good Definition of Done:

All of this is useful.
We need structure.
We need agreements.

The problem is what happens inside the engineer’s head:

“If I satisfy the Definition of Done, I did my job.”

And so the mental horizon shrinks to the checklist:

The question “Did we actually solve the problem?” never shows up.
Or it shows up too late, when we’re already in production and users are struggling.

A system built on Done but not on Solved creates the same pattern over and over:

Velocity looks healthy.
The product feels heavier every month.

Code-first thinking is comfortable — and dangerous

Why do engineers gravitate to code-first thinking?

Because it’s comfortable.

Code is concrete.
You can see it.
You can run it.
You can point to a diff and say, “I did something.”

Outcomes are messy.

They live in the world of:

It is much easier to say:

“My job is to implement what’s written in the ticket.”

than to say:

“My job is to understand what must change in reality and design the simplest, safest way to get there.”

But here is the uncomfortable truth:

Every time we hide behind “just implementing the ticket”, we are surrendering the actual power and responsibility of engineering.

We stop thinking like designers of systems.
We start thinking like typists with Git access.

You are not hired to move tickets. You are hired to move reality.

Let’s step back for a moment.

Why does your company pay you?

They don’t pay you to:

Those are means.

They pay you because they want:

In other words: they pay you to change reality.

Code is how we encode those changes.

It is the final expression of a long chain of decisions:

Outcome → Behavior → Design → Code.
In that order.

When we invert this order and start from the bottom, we might still ship something that “works”.

But it rarely solves the right thing.

The quiet difference between average and high-level engineers

On the surface, two engineers can look very similar:

Both can write code that passes tests.

The difference is in how they think before they touch the keyboard.

Only after that, they move down toward design and code.

From the outside, it still looks like “they wrote some code”.

But internally, the process is completely different.

One is coding.
The other is engineering.

In the next part, we’ll put a clear structure around this way of thinking.

You’ll see a simple mental model — the Outcome–Behavior–Code Ladder — that you can use every day to escape the trap of code-first thinking and become the kind of engineer who doesn’t just write software, but reshapes reality with intent.

Code Is Just the Last Mile of Changing Reality

Let’s flip the usual story on its head.

Most engineers think like this:

“I write code. That’s my job.”

I want to invite a different identity:

“I change how reality behaves. Code is just the last mile of that change.”

That’s not poetry. It’s a literal description of what good engineering does.

The code is the visible part.
The change in reality is the real work.

A doctor doesn’t define success by prescriptions

Think about a doctor.

If you ask, “What’s your goal with this patient?” and they answer:

“My goal is to write three prescriptions and schedule two exams.”

You would feel something is very wrong.

The prescriptions are means.
The real goal is something like:

The doctor designs an outcome and chooses tools to reach it.

You, as an engineer, are closer to that than you think.

They matter.
But they are not the goal.

The goal is always a concrete change in reality:

Code is the last mile of that.

The real job: designing how the world should behave

When you adopt an outcome-first mindset, the sequence in your head changes.

Instead of:

Ticket → Code

You start thinking:

Outcome → Behavior → Design → Code

You start from a very simple but powerful question:

“What must be true in the real world after we ship this?”

And you sit with that for a moment.

Only when this is clear do you move down into system behavior and design.

Code becomes a translation step, not the birthplace of your ideas.

A small story: two ways to fix the “lost order” problem

Imagine customers are complaining:

“Sometimes, when I try to pay, the screen freezes and I don’t know if my order went through.”

Two engineers pick up a ticket to “fix the payment bug”.

The code-first engineer immediately thinks:

“The bug is in the payment service. I’ll add a retry and a new spinner on the frontend.”

The outcome-first engineer stops and reframes:

“Outcome: users should never be unsure if their order was created or not.”

That sounds similar, but it’s a very different starting point.

From there, the outcome-first engineer starts asking:

They might arrive at a completely different solution:

Same bug.
Same stack.
Two very different realities after shipping.

One version “makes the code work.”
The other version makes the world behave differently in a way that actually solves the problem.

Why this matters for your growth as an engineer

Here is a harsh truth:

If you define yourself as “someone who writes code that works,” you are easily replaceable.

There is always:

What is not easily replaceable is the ability to:

That’s engineering as wisdom in action, not just syntax and patterns.

Outcome-first engineers become:

Not because they know one more framework.
But because they think differently.

“But I’m just an engineer, not a product person”

You might be thinking:

“This sounds like product management. Isn’t it their job to define outcomes?”

No.

It is their job to collaborate with you on outcomes.

Product can describe the problem space and business constraints.
Design can shape the user experience.

But when reality meets code, you are responsible for:

You are not “just implementing.”

You are choosing:

These are not neutral decisions.
They shape reality for thousands of people.

Pretending you are “just writing code” doesn’t remove the responsibility.
It only removes your awareness of it.

Code as the echo of a deeper decision

Every line of code is an echo.

Before you wrote it, you made a decision (conscious or not) about:

Outcome-first engineering simply makes those decisions explicit and intentional.

You don’t discover the goal at the end of the PR.
You start from it.

That’s why I say:

Code is not the goal; it is the last mile of changing reality.

In the next part, we’ll make this even more concrete.

I’ll walk you through a simple mental model — the Outcome–Behavior–Code Ladder — so you can see exactly how to move from vague tickets and “just coding” to a clear, repeatable way of thinking that starts from outcomes and ends in code as an intentional consequence.

The Outcome–Behavior–Code Ladder

So how do you actually think in outcomes instead of code?

You need a ladder.

Something simple enough to hold in your head, but strong enough to guide real decisions in messy projects.

I use a mental model I call the Outcome–Behavior–Code Ladder.

It looks like this:

Outcome → Behavior → Design → Code

Most engineers live only on the last rung: Code.
Outcome-first engineers move up and down this ladder all the time.

Let’s walk through each level.

Outcome – What must be different in the real world?

This is the top of the ladder.

The question here is brutally simple:

“What must be true in reality after we ship this?”

Not in Jira.
Not in the codebase.
In reality.

That might sound like:

An outcome is measurable or at least observable.

You could bring someone from outside the team, show them before and after, and they would see the difference.

If you cannot describe the outcome clearly, you are already operating blind.
You are choosing tools without a diagnosis.

At this level, you’re not thinking about APIs, databases, queues, or UI components.

You are thinking about:

You are deciding which part of reality you want to move.

Behavior – How must the system behave to support that outcome?

Once you know what must change in reality, you move one level down:

“How must the system behave so that this outcome is possible and reliable?”

Here you are not yet writing code.
You are describing rules and flows.

For example:

You’re defining:

Think of this level as choreography.

You are deciding how the system dances when real life kicks it in different ways.

Good engineers spend a lot of time here.

They imagine:

Because they know: if the behaviors are wrong, the code will be wrong, even if it “works”.

Design – What is the simplest model that can produce that behavior?

Once the behavior is clear, you move down another rung:

“What is the simplest design that can make this behavior real?”

Here you are thinking in concepts:

You ask questions like:

You’re shaping the mental model of the system.

This is where good naming, proper boundaries, and clear invariants live.

Design is the bridge between abstract behavior and concrete code.

If you skip this level, you usually pay the price later:

Outcome-first engineers are ruthless here.

They look for the simplest design that faithfully produces the behavior needed for the outcome.

Not the most clever design.

The clearest one.

Code – How do we encode this design?

Only now do you reach the bottom of the ladder:

“Given this design, what code best encodes it?”

This is where most engineers start.
Outcome-first engineers deliberately arrive here later.

Now questions like these finally make sense:

The difference is subtle but huge:

You are not inventing code from a vague ticket.
You are translating a clear design, that comes from clear behaviors, that come from a clear outcome.

Code becomes a faithful representation of decisions you already made.

You are not discovering the goal while you write.
You are implementing the goal.

Why starting at the bottom breaks everything

Most teams live like this:

What happens?

It’s like building a house by starting with random walls because someone said:

“We need three rooms and two windows.”

No blueprint.
No structural plan.
Just hammers and bricks.

It might stay up.
But you probably won’t want to live in it.

Climbing the ladder in real life

You don’t need a big ceremony to use this ladder.

You can apply it quietly in your own head.

Before you touch the keyboard, ask yourself:

If your brain jumps straight to:

“I need to add a field to this table and call this service…”

Pause.

Force yourself to climb at least two levels up:

You will be surprised how often the code you were about to write…
was not the code you actually needed.

In the next part, we’ll look at concrete stories where two engineers faced the same problem:

You’ll see how this simple way of thinking leads to radically different decisions, and why outcome-first engineers quietly become the people everyone trusts when it really matters.

How Outcome-First Engineers Think Differently

Let me show you what this looks like in real life.

Three stories.
Same kind of problems.
Completely different way of thinking.

Story 1 — “I’m stuck integrating this API”

A developer once came to me clearly frustrated.

“I’m stuck. This external API is awful. The docs are confusing, the responses are inconsistent. I’ve tried three times and it keeps failing in weird ways.”

I asked the question I always ask:

“What is your objective?”

The answer came fast:

“Integrate this API so we can send the data.”

That sounds reasonable.
But notice: the goal is the code.

So I pushed:

“No. What is your real objective in the product? If this task didn’t exist as a ticket, what are we actually trying to change in reality?”

He paused.

Silence.

Then slowly:

“We want users to see updated data from this partner… so they can make better decisions without leaving our platform.”

Now we were on the top of the ladder: Outcome.

We started to explore Behavior:

Suddenly, the problem changed shape.

We realized we didn’t need a fragile, synchronous, request-per-user integration at all.

Instead, we designed:

The integration became simpler, more reliable, and far easier to debug.

The developer’s initial goal was: “Make this API call work.”

The new goal was: “Ensure users can trust the data they see, even when the partner is unstable.”

Same feature on the surface.
Different reality underneath.

That’s Outcome–Behavior–Code in action.

Story 2 — The migration that never needed to happen

In another team, a developer picked up a ticket:

“Migrate all historical orders from table A to new table B with new structure.”

The task was big.
Millions of records.
Risk of downtime.
Endless edge cases.

He had already spent days designing a complex migration strategy.

Again, the same question:

“What is your objective?”

The answer:

“Move the data from the old table to the new one.”

On the surface, true.
On the ladder, still stuck at Code.

So we stepped up:

“Forget the migration for a second. Why do we want this new table? What must be true in reality after this change?”

We talked.

After a few minutes, it became clear:

That’s it.
The business didn’t care about tables.
They cared about understanding revenue.

Once we held that outcome, we moved to Behavior:

With that clarity, a completely different option appeared:

No massive migration.
No risky downtime.
No weeks of engineering effort.

The original “solution” was born from starting at the bottom of the ladder.

The better solution came when we started from the top.

Story 3 — The feature that was over-specified

One of my favorite patterns is what happens when engineers enter early in product discussions with an outcome-first mindset.

A PM brought a very detailed user story:

The ticket basically said:

“Add this new screen. Call this service. Store this data here. Show these exact fields in this exact way.”

A code-first engineer would think:

“Okay, I just implement this. Let’s estimate the effort.”

An outcome-first engineer asked a different first question:

“Before we talk about screens and fields… if this feature is a success, what changes in reality for the user? And for the business?”

The PM answered:

“We want support to stop chasing users to complete missing information. They should proactively see what’s missing and fix it themselves.”

Now we had the Outcome.

We then asked:

By the end of the conversation, the solution was smaller and sharper:

Less code.
Less UI complexity.
More impact on the actual outcome.

Here is the key:

The PM didn’t resist this.
They appreciated it.

Because someone helped them move from “designing a feature” to “designing an outcome”.

When engineers show up like this, they stop being “ticket takers” and become partners in shaping reality.

The pattern behind all these stories

In every story, something subtle but powerful happened:

Once we pulled the conversation up to the top of the ladder, everything changed:

Outcome-first engineers are not magicians.
They are simply unwilling to accept “write this code” as a real objective.

They keep asking:

“What must be true when this is actually solved?”

Then they walk down the ladder, one level at a time, until code is the obvious last step.

In the next part, we’ll turn this into a practical routine.

You’ll see how to practice Outcome-First Engineering in your daily work, even if nobody else on your team is doing it yet — starting with the questions you ask yourself before you write a single line of code.

How to Practice Outcome-First Engineering Daily

Let’s make this practical.

You don’t need a new process framework.
You don’t need permission from your manager.
You don’t need a workshop.

You need a different way to start every task.

Here’s a simple playbook you can apply quietly in your own work.

1. Rewrite every task as an outcome

Before you write code, rewrite the ticket in your own words.

Not in terms of “what to build”.
In terms of “what must change in reality”.

Take a typical story:

“Add a new field to the profile screen so users can set their timezone.”

Code-first objective:

“I need to add a timezone field, save it to the DB, and display it.”

Outcome-first rewrite:

“Users in different regions should see times that actually match their local reality, so they stop getting confused and missing events.”

Feel the difference.

Same ticket.
Different mission.

When you rewrite the task like this:

Sometimes you’ll realize the original solution is fine.
Sometimes you’ll see a better, simpler path.

Make this a habit:

Before you start a task, write one or two sentences:

“The outcome I’m aiming for is: …”

Keep it visible while you work.

2. Never stay on the bottom rung of the ladder

If your “goal” sounds like code, you’re too low.

When you catch yourself there, climb.

Ask yourself two questions:

  1. “What behavior am I trying to change in the system?”
  2. “What outcome does that behavior enable for users or the business?”

Write the answers down.

Example:

“I need to add retries to this API call.”

Climb:

Now your implementation decisions will be different:

Two questions.
Huge shift in thinking.

3. Speak in outcomes during standups and updates

This one is subtle, but powerful.

Most engineers talk like this in standup:

“Yesterday I refactored the payment service and started integrating the new API. Today I’ll work on the webhook handling.”

That’s all Code level.

Try changing your language:

“I’m working on making sure users never lose an order when the payment provider is slow. For that, I’m changing how we create orders and handle webhooks.”

Same work.
Different framing.

Why does this matter?

If you consistently speak this way, people will notice:

“This person really understands what we’re trying to achieve.”

That’s how reputations are built.

4. Add “Definition of Solved” next to “Definition of Done”

Definition of Done is about completion:

Definition of Solved is about reality:

“What must be true in production for us to say this is genuinely solved?”

For each task, write a short Definition of Solved:

Then ask:

Suddenly, monitoring and observability are not “nice extras”.
They become part of solving the problem.

You’re designing reality, not just shipping code.

5. Run tiny postmortems on your own features

Not big meetings.
Not formal documents.

Just 5–10 minutes of honest reflection after something ships.

Ask yourself:

Write a few bullets.

This is where you really grow.

Over time you’ll notice patterns:

Every small reflection is a deposit in your thinking capital.

You are not just gaining experience.
You are learning how to aim your experience better.

6. Make questions your main debugging tool for reality

Outcome-first engineering requires humility.

You must be willing to admit:

“I don’t fully understand this yet — and that’s exactly why I need to ask.”

I believe this deeply:

There are no stupid questions.
What’s really dangerous is not asking questions.

For every meaningful task, commit to asking at least one question that clarifies the outcome or behavior.

Questions like:

You’ll be surprised how often:

You’re not being annoying.
You’re honoring the responsibility of changing reality with intention.

7. Lead by example, even if you’re not “the leader”

You might be thinking:

“This is great, but my team doesn’t think this way.”

That’s fine.

Every culture shift starts with one person who behaves differently.

You don’t need a title to lead.

You can:

Over time, people will start copying the language you use.

They’ll ask you for help on tricky problems.

They’ll pull you into earlier conversations.

Why?

Because Outcome-First Engineering makes you:

You don’t become an outcome-first engineer in one big leap.

You become one decision at a time:

In the next part, we’ll look at the frictions and objections you’ll face — inside your own mind and inside your company — and how to keep this way of thinking alive even when everything around you is screaming, “Just ship something that works.”

Objections and Frictions: Why Engineers Resist Outcome-First Thinking

By now, part of you is probably nodding.
Another part is quietly rebelling.

That’s normal.

Changing how you think is uncomfortable.
You’re not just adopting a new technique.
You’re changing how you see your own role.

Let’s bring those frictions to the surface and deal with them honestly.

“Isn’t this product’s job, not mine?”

One of the first reactions is:

“This sounds like product management. My job is to code.”

I understand where that comes from.

In many companies, the story is:

The problem is that reality doesn’t respect that clean separation.

When you design data models, APIs, workflows, and constraints, you are making product decisions in code:

You can’t escape that responsibility by saying, “I’m just implementing.”

The truth is:

Outcome-first thinking is not about taking product’s job.
It’s about doing your job fully.

You’re not overriding the “why”.
You’re aligning the “how” with it.

“We don’t have time for this; everything is urgent”

Another common friction:

“This is nice in theory, but we have pressure, deadlines, and too much to do. We don’t have time to go that deep.”

On the surface, that feels true.

In the short term, it is faster to:

But here is the hidden cost:

Every misunderstanding you don’t catch at the start
comes back as:

You don’t save time by skipping outcomes.
You borrow time from the future at very high interest.

Outcome-first engineering is not about adding a week of analysis to every task.

Most of the time, it’s about adding:

It’s not “heavy process”.
It’s a small pause to aim before pulling the trigger.

You’re not slowing down.
You’re choosing to suffer once, instead of suffering five times for the same problem.

“I’m not that kind of engineer”

This one is internal:

“I’m not strategic or product-minded. I’m a builder. I just like to code.”

I’ve heard this many times, especially from very talented people.

Two things to notice here:

First, this is not about being “strategic” in some corporate sense.
It’s about being honest and precise about what you’re doing.

You already know how to:

Outcome-first thinking just moves that same skill one level up:

Second, this is a story you’re telling yourself.

Nobody is born “product-minded”.
You become outcome-minded by practicing:

You don’t need to turn into a PM.
You just need to stop being blind to the impact of your own work.

“If I ask questions, I’ll look incompetent or difficult”

This is a quiet fear:

“If I ask basic questions about the problem, people will think I don’t understand. I’ll slow everything down. I’ll be the annoying one.”

So you stay silent.
You implement.
You hope for the best.

I prefer a different principle:

You don’t lose respect by asking sincere, thoughtful questions.
You gain it.

There is a huge difference between:

“I don’t get anything, what do you want me to do?”

and:

“I understand the ticket, but I want to make sure I’m aiming at the right outcome. What exactly needs to be true in three months for this to be considered a success?”

One sounds like helplessness.
The other sounds like ownership.

Good leaders and good PMs recognize that.

And if someone truly punishes you for trying to understand the problem better, that says more about their maturity than yours.

“My company only cares about throughput”

Sometimes the friction is external:

“All this is nice, but my company only cares about tickets closed and features shipped. They won’t value this way of thinking.”

Let’s be honest: some environments are immature.

They:

But even in those environments, two things are true:

  1. Reality still responds better to outcomes than to checklists.
  2. You still have influence over how you work.

You may not be able to change your KPIs tomorrow.
But you can change:

And here is a pattern I’ve seen:

Even in output-obsessed cultures, people recognize:

“This person actually understands what we’re doing.”

That becomes your personal reputation, independent of the company’s current level of maturity.

“I’m still junior; this is not my place”

Another quiet story:

“I’m early in my career. My job is to learn the stack and implement. Thinking in outcomes is for seniors.”

The irony is that juniors who adopt outcome-first thinking grow much faster.

You don’t need years of experience to ask:

In fact, being junior can be an advantage:

If you wire your brain early to think in outcomes, every year of experience will compound on top of that.

You won’t just become “a senior who writes code”.
You’ll become “a senior who designs the right thing”.

Facing the discomfort is part of the work

Outcome-first engineering will sometimes feel heavier than “just coding”.

You will:

That discomfort is not a bug.
It is part of the calling.

You are choosing a harder path in the short term,
to avoid a much harder path in the long term.

And you are choosing a more honest path:

In the final part, we’ll bring everything together.

We’ll close with a reframing that you can carry with you:

A simple way to remember, in one sentence, what it really means to be an outcome-first engineer — so you don’t get lost again in the noise of “just ship something that works.”

From Ticket Machines to Designers of Reality

Let’s zoom out.

If you’ve ever felt like “just an executor”, there’s a reason.

Most systems around you are designed to turn engineers into ticket machines:

You pick a ticket.
You implement.
You move it to Done.

Repeat.

You can spend years like this.
Busy. Delivering. Tired.
But not really building anything that feels meaningful.

Outcome-First Engineering is a decision to step out of that script.

It is you saying, quietly but firmly:

“I am not here just to move tasks.
I am here to move reality.”

Remember what your work actually does

Every line of code is connected to a person you will probably never meet:

When you think in outcomes first, you keep that person in view.

You don’t just:

You:

That’s what you’re really building.

The rest is just syntax.

The identity shift

At the deepest level, this is not about frameworks or processes.

It’s about identity.

You can see yourself as:

“I’m a developer. I take tickets and write code that works.”

Or you can see yourself as:

“I’m an engineer. I design how this system shapes reality, and I use code as my way to do that with precision.”

The work on your screen might look similar.
The person doing it is not.

One is surviving the sprint.
The other is building something with intent.

A simple way to not forget

Next time you start a task, try this small ritual:

  1. Read the ticket.
  2. Close your eyes for five seconds.
  3. Ask: “When this is truly solved, what will be different in the real world?”
  4. Write that answer in one or two sentences.
  5. Keep it in front of you while you design and code.

It will feel small.
But it will quietly change everything:

Because you’re not just “shipping features” anymore.
You’re shaping outcomes.

The line to carry with you

If you remember nothing else from this article, remember this:

You are not here to move tickets from left to right.
You are here to move reality from “broken” to “better”. Code is just the last mile.

That is Outcome-First Engineering.

And that is the kind of engineer people remember, trust, and want to follow.

Best,
Linecker Amorim