The GRC community is obsessed with the wrong question.
Everyone's debating "What should a GRC Engineer know?" while missing the fundamental choice every organization faces: Do you need the person, the process, or both?
A GRC Engineer is an individual with technical skills. GRC Engineering is a systems thinking approach to GRC program design. These are completely different investments that solve different problems.
Most organizations are making expensive hiring and tooling decisions without understanding this distinction, leading to mismatched expectations, failed implementations, and frustrated teams.
It's time to stop debating skills and start mapping your actual organizational needs.
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
Modernizing GRC: From checkbox compliance to strategic enabler
Manual audits, evidence collection, and compliance tracking are draining security teams. This new guide from Tines shows how automation helps reduce risk, improve visibility, and free up time for higher-value work. Because GRC isn't a checkbox; it's a strategic advantage.
See how companies like PathAI and Druva are modernizing GRC.
Why It Matters 🔍
The why: the core problem this solves and why you should care
The current market conflates individual technical capability with organizational systems maturity, creating dangerous blind spots in GRC strategy.
This creates three immediate problems:
Investment Misalignment: Hiring a GRC Engineer when you need better processes, or buying tools when you need engineering talent
Expectation Mismatch: Expecting one technical person to solve systemic program design issues, or expecting platforms to work at scale without dedicated expertise and data cleaning
Career Confusion: Technical professionals getting pigeonholed in implementation roles while strategic program decisions happen elsewhere
The "GRC maximalist" trap perfectly illustrates this confusion. Some practitioners want to own all technical implementation (the person without the system), while others assume platforms solve everything (the system without the person).
As one GRC leader recently told me: "GRC Engineering has a strand that wants to own the plumbing behind control implementation, which creates independence issues and makes GRC operate with high privileges in areas where they have low context."
The signal is matching your investment to your actual organizational needs. Everything else is expensive misalignment.
# A GRC Choose Your Own Adventure (That Always Ends Badly)
class GRCInvestmentDecision:
def __init__(self):
self.executive_confidence = "dangerously_high"
def choose_your_adventure(self, problem, solution):
adventures = {
("broken_processes", "hire_engineer"): "engineer_quits_after_discovering_your_documentation_is_three_napkins",
("need_automation", "buy_platform"): "platform_requires_21_manual_steps_per_automated_task",
("scale_problems", "hire_one_person"): "person_goes_on_vacation_compliance_program_collapses",
("any_problem", "assess_needs_first"): "boring_but_functional_program_that_actually_works"
}
return adventures.get((problem, solution), "somehow_made_it_worse_impressive_really")
# Six months later...
def reality_check():
return "choose_your_own_adventure_but_physics_still_applies 🎭"
Strategic Framework 🧩
The what: The 4-quadrant GRC program decision matrix
The Critical Investment Decision: People vs. Process vs. Both
Before jumping to solutions, ask yourself the fundamental questions:
Do you have process problems or execution problems?
Will hiring one person solve systemic issues?
Can platforms work without someone to optimize them?
Are you ready for the complexity of managing both?
The GRC Engineering/GRC Engineer Matrix
Y-Axis: GRC Engineering (Systems/Process Approach)
X-Axis: GRC Engineer (Individual Role/Skills)
Quadrant 1: Traditional GRC - "Established but Legacy" (Traditional Investment)
Who Fits Here: 99% of companies, established enterprises with mature regulatory programs
Current Reality: GRC tools 10+ years old, GRC team is 95% ex-Big4 consultants, focus on Risk, Compliance, TPRM
Investment Strategy: Leverage existing process excellence while gradually introducing digital capabilities
When to Choose: Strong regulatory expertise, established stakeholder relationships, preference for proven methodologies
Strategic Goal: Reduce manual toil and introduce basic automation within existing frameworks
Risk: Falling behind as compliance demands increase and competitors modernize with technical approaches
Quadrant 2: Scaling GRC - "Relevant Security Partner" (People-Focused)
Who Fits Here: Mid-sized tech companies needing tactical automation
Current Reality: GRC automation platform in use, GRC team is a team of 1, focus on Compliance, TPRM, Risk
Investment Strategy: Hire technical GRC talent for specific automation needs while building team capacity
When to Choose: Clear automation opportunities, limited scope, need to become relevant security partner
Strategic Goal: Transform from compliance checkbox to strategic security enabler
Risk: Single point of failure, person becomes bottleneck rather than force multiplier
Quadrant 3: Platform-driven GRC - "Going Beyond Compliance" (System-Focused)
Who Fits Here: Small tech companies with sophisticated tooling approach
Current Reality: GRC automation platform implemented, GRC owner isn't a GRC professional, focus on Compliance, Money, Sales
Investment Strategy: Leverage platforms effectively, focus on process optimization and stakeholder experience
When to Choose: Strong existing tool stack, business-driven compliance needs, sales enablement focus
Strategic Goal: Use GRC as competitive advantage and revenue enabler, not just cost center
Risk: Limited customization capability, dependent on platform vendor roadmap
Quadrant 4: Enterprise GRC - "Sifting Through Complexity" (Comprehensive Investment)
Who Fits Here: Bigger tech companies with complex, mature programs
Current Reality: GRC tools 3-5 years old, GRC is security-driven, focus on Compliance, TPRM, Risk
Investment Strategy: Build internal capability for both technical implementation and systems design
When to Choose: High complexity, unique requirements, significant scale, regulatory sophistication
Strategic Goal: Navigate regulatory complexity while maintaining business velocity and security posture
Risk: Over-engineering, coordination complexity between people and systems, analysis paralysis
This integrates all the specific details from your matrix (team composition, tool ages, focus areas, strategic goals) directly into the quadrant descriptions, making them much more concrete and recognizable for readers.
Want to sponsor the GRC revolution?
The middle spot still has a lot of available inventory so if you’re interested, now is the time! ~65% open rates and high-CTR by industry standards aren’t even the reasons why should you work with the GRC Engineer.
Helping propel the revolution in how companies think about GRC and build their programs is the real reason! If you want to showcase your offering to a highly-engaged audience of GRC leaders from the world’s most successful companies, you know what to do.
Execution Blueprint 🛠️
The how: 3 practical steps to put this strategy into action at your organisation
Step 1: Diagnose Your Actual Need (Not Your Assumed Solution)
Process Problems Indicators:
Stakeholder confusion about GRC requirements
Inconsistent evidence collection across teams
Manual workflows that could be systematized
Lack of standardized approaches across business units
Solution: GRC Engineering approach (systems/process focus)
Execution Problems Indicators:
Clear processes but need technical implementation
Specific automation opportunities identified
Team has capacity to utilize technical skills
Well-defined requirements with implementation gaps
Solution: GRC Engineer hire (person focus)
Scale Problems Indicators:
Both process design AND technical complexity
Multiple frameworks requiring custom solutions
Organizational readiness for comprehensive investment
Complex integration requirements with existing systems
Solution: Both approaches simultaneously
Step 2: Choose Your Quadrant Strategy
Quadrant 1 Strategy: Build fundamental capabilities first
Focus on process design and stakeholder relationships
Master your existing tools before seeking technical solutions
Invest in training and basic automation within current platforms
Timeline: 12-18 months to mature toward Quadrant 2 or 3
Quadrant 2 Strategy: Hire for specific technical outcomes
Target mid-level technical professionals who can bridge GRC and engineering
Focus on evidence automation, basic integrations, and workflow improvements
Key Hiring Criteria: Python/SQL skills + GRC context + stakeholder management
Success Metrics: Reduced manual effort, improved audit efficiency
Quadrant 3 Strategy: Maximize platform capabilities and process design
Deep investment in vendor relationship management and platform optimization
Focus on workflow design, stakeholder experience, and process standardization
Key Skills: Advanced platform knowledge, process design, change management
Success Metrics: Platform utilization rates, stakeholder satisfaction, process efficiency
Quadrant 4 Strategy: Build comprehensive technical and systems capability
Hire software engineers and train them on GRC context
Invest in custom platform development and systems architecture
Key Success Factors: Strong product management, clear technical roadmaps, organizational alignment
Success Metrics: Custom solution effectiveness, engineering team productivity, business impact
Step 3: Execute and Avoid Common Traps
Avoid Common Transition Traps:
Q1 → Q2: Don't hire technical talent until processes are documented and stakeholder needs are clear
Q1 → Q3: Don't buy platforms until you understand your workflow requirements and have change management capability
Q2 → Q4: Don't scale individual contributors; build systems and team structures first
Q3 → Q4: Don't hire engineers until platform capabilities are maximized and custom requirements are proven
Red Flags You're in the Wrong Quadrant:
Your GRC Engineer spends more time in meetings than building automation (wrong expectations for Q2)
Your platform sits mostly unused while manual processes continue (wrong choice of Q3)
Your technical team rebuilds functionality that platforms already provide (wrong implementation of Q4)
You're hiring "GRC Engineers" but expecting them to solve process design problems (category confusion)
Most should I hire a GRC Engineer? questions are really asking do I need better people or better systems?
The answer depends entirely on where your organization sits on the technical maturity spectrum. Understanding your quadrant prevents expensive misalignment and sets realistic expectations for both individual careers and organizational outcomes.
Which quadrant does your organization actually need?
Did you enjoy this week's entry?
Content Queue 📖
The learn: This week's resource to dive deeper on the topic
A great read for GRC Engineering enthusiasts is the latest blog post from Varun, one of the grc.engineering manifesto co-authors and an occasional Medium blogger as well.
In this piece, he dives deep on the maturity you require as your GRC program gets more and more complex and how it informs the build vs. buy discussion.
Amazing stuff, fully recommend you have a look and tell him you enjoyed it on LinkedIn!
That’s all for this week’s issue, folks!
If you enjoyed it, you might also enjoy:
My spicier takes on LinkedIn [/in/ayoubfandi]
Listening to the GRC Engineer Podcast
See you next week!