Reminds me of one of my managers who said, “Sometimes, you have to let people fail.” It does take a lot of energy to keep some people afloat. My hope has always been they learn to swim as it were, but sometimes it’s just effort better spent elsewhere.
I know one project did not have my involvement and couldn’t have succeeded without my knowledge. They were so bad they would work in questions casually to their actual work.
I started avoiding all of them when I found out management had been dumping on my team and praising theirs. It’s just such a slap in the face because they could not have done well and their implementation was horrible.
> Reminds me of one of my managers who said, “Sometimes, you have to let people fail.”
I often say "Sometimes, you have to let the manager fail."
Some managers don't like being told their ideas won't work. If you refuse or argue, you are seen as the reason his idea failed. I've found what works best with them is to proceed with the work, but keep them informed very frequently, so they can see how things evolve, and will be able to see the failure you had anticipated a long time ago before it is too late.
Then you're seen in a positive light, and he'll separate you from the project failure.
Letting people fail and letting projects fail seem fairly different to me (at least for large projects).
There have been a bunch of times in my career where I've allowed people under me to "fail". Often times, an individual failing at something is just not that expensive; while being highly educational. Sometimes, it turns out that there approach actually worked, and we as a group gained a new bit of institutional knowledge.
Letting people learn the hard way is a risky endeavour because you have to trust they’re aware of themselves, and they’re not coasting on your support.
Gotta accept that a likely outcome is that they do fail and they don’t learn and you have to let them go. But if you tried to support them beforehand, did what you could, at least you can have a clear conscience.
> Reminds me of one of my managers who said, “Sometimes, you have to let people fail.”
Yup -- I've learned a lot from my failures. Far be it for me to deny others that experience. Assuming their failures won't result in the company imploding or other serious harm, of course.
> It’s important to point out that for much of the lifecycle of a project, whether it’s “bad” is highly subjective.
I can’t emphasize this part enough.
I’ve been part of some projects where someone external to the team went on a crusade to shut our work down because they disagreed with it. When we pushed through, shipped it, and it worked well they lost a lot of credibility.
Be careful about what you spend your reputational capital on.
> I’ve been part of some projects where someone external to the team went on a crusade to shut our work down because they disagreed with it. When we pushed through, shipped it, and it worked well they lost a lot of credibility.
I went through this at a corporate job not too long ago for the first time. One of the more insane things I've dealt with so far in my career. I know life isn't always sunshine and rainbows, but up to that point I'd never seen that level of naked, antisocial self-interest in an org that was ostensibly created to allow people to cooperate toward solving some problem for our customers. Call me naive, but it was really disheartening.
I disagree, and I think this advice can be actively harmful. You shouldn’t ignore a problem when you’re in a position to help. At the same time, you also shouldn’t take on the emotional burden of other people’s projects.
If I see something heading toward failure, I let people know they may want to consider a different approach. That’s it. There’s no need to be harsh or belabor the point but it’s better to speak up than to quietly watch a train wreck unfold.
This clause is doing a lot of heavy lifting. One needs to have good judgement about when and how to help. A lot of people can imagine how things could go better if a bunch of other people changed their behavior in surprisingly simple ways. It's a much smaller subset of people that can correctly push the right buttons to get the other people to actually make those changes succeed at a systematic level.
In a small org it's actually not too hard for good ideas and feedback to get traction. In a larger org for broad concerns it can be fiendeshly difficult. Often the reason why a large project will fail is only truly knowable by a few senior technical people with enough experience and broad context to see the forrest for the trees. Past a certain volume of people involved you can not explain to people why it will fail fast enough to offset the army of clueless stakeholders incentivized to socialize a good-sounding narrative convincing everyone that we need to try. In these cases reductive explanations with the right counter-narrative can work, but they require significant reputational and/or hard authority to pull off.
This is why the article advocates picking your battles in a large org. Often the chance of actually helping is much lower than destroying your own reputation, even if you're right.
It depends on the context. If you're with a small organization and you're interacting with the project early in the development, it could well be your duty to explain your misgivings and why you think they should do things differently. If you're with a large organization and the project is already underway, it's going to take a lot of time and effort to redirect the project. That's time and effort that could probably be spent more productively elsewhere.
The point the author is making is somewhat maligned by the title "... let bad projects fail".
The point the author makes is that sometimes you are not in control of those projects. Therefore "letting them fail" seems a false choice constructed by the author.
A better title "You don't know what other people are doing and you don't know why unless it is your job to do so."
>If I see something heading toward failure, I let people know they may want to consider a different approach. That’s it. There’s no need to be harsh or belabor the point but it’s better to speak up than to quietly watch a train wreck unfold.
Yes, it seems cruel and also counter to ensuring the org succeeds. Your perceived ability as an engineer might go up if your colleagues fail, but your colleagues failing when you knew a possible way for things to go better is harmful to your org's goals and culture. It only takes a small few failures for the bar to be lowered to the point that you yourself may not want to work there.
Even sometimes when other people's projects are NOT your problem and they aren't seeking feedback, sometimes you SHOULD make their flaws your problem if it is of crucial importance to your org. Knowing when you should expend your energy on an initiative like that is in itself a mark of seniority.
> If I see something heading toward failure, I let people know they may want to consider a different approach.
This is what I do as well, in writing. Then I drop it. Professionalism demands that I say something. That's part of what I'm being paid to do. But experience has taught me that it's almost certainly not going to change anything, so I just do my duty and move on.
I think this is the best take. If you know better speak up (assuming you don't get penalized for that). But anytime you feel the pain, refrain. Don't carry the weight of the world upon your shoulders. You spoke up and if they did not heed your advice that's not your problem.
I was put on a project a few years back that I thought was heading in the wrong direction. I said something and was ignored. I said something again and it was made clear by the response that the new VP had surrounded himself with yes-men and there was no more room for this kind of input. Ever since I have watched train wreck and train wreck. I’m not going to fight to help people who don’t what to listen to well meaning feedback.
Funny enough, 2 years after I was told to get on board or keep my mouth shut, customers complained about the very thing I said they would complain about. I felt slightly vindicated, and they had to rearchitect the whole thing to try and accomplish it. It’s been 5 years since the project started and they still haven’t fully shipped the feature.
If you have the power (as the post mentions - like a CEO) you can suggest, direct or butcher a project and no one would see you as a negative person.
But you can get butchered when you don't have the authority to poke around your concerns.
I would prefer to see the ship sink instead of shooting myself in the foot and risking my influence and credibility - as another comment on this thread said "Sometimes, you have to let people fail".
you can do your best to play it smart. perhaps following this direct advice isn't wise but something tweaked to your own understnading of it is likely the option. I agree with the post. a way id reword it is "don't get too deep into politics, take a step back instead and assess the trade-offs of being involved or not"
When I was officially the architect at two companies between 2016-2020, I felt comfortable stating my opinions on the “how” of the underlying infrastructure and cross cutting concerns and shared code. But even then I didn’t give my unsolicited opinion to the team leads who built for instance the user interface or the business logic when that wasn’t my responsibility.
The second saying is “The avalanche has already started. The pebbles no longer have a vote”. If a decision was decided by my skip manager or above,
I’m not saying anything. I’m going to go along with the program.
I’ve been working for consulting departments (at AWS) and then (full time) at consulting companies since 2020. When I was a mid level consultant (L5) at AWS, for larger projects where I was assigned to lead one slice of work (a workstream), if it didn’t affect me, I said nothing. I was just trying to keep my head down to get through my four year initial contract.
I definitely didn’t stick my nose into projects I wasn’t assigned to.
Now I’m a staff consultant at a third party consulting company. I still go by the same rule. I keep my mouth shut about internal corporate decisions, I tow the company line, I don’t give unsolicited advice about other projects and I lead my own projects.
There is one specific speciality I’m working on building up within the company where I will subtly interject. But even then, it’s only because I have the blessing of C suite and they reached out to me.
I’ve never worked in big tech, but I have seen the same dynamics play out in much smaller orgs.
If you’re constantly nitpicking and expressing concerns, you become “that person” who’s constantly negative about other people’s ideas. After a while people tune out; they already know that you’ll find “problems.” We all know these people. No one really likes working with them. Thus they’re _not effective_ at what they’re trying to do.
Ultimately you mostly get credit for shipping things that work, and only rarely for preventing the mistakes of other people.
At its core, what the blog post is saying is: keep your powder dry for when it matters. Not every problem is going to make the company insolvent. Not every concern will prove correct. Pick your battles strategically.
It’s good advice no matter the size or nature of the org.
I think this advice is pretty apt for small to medium sized companies. We're all invested in the company succeeding, but you don't want to become known as the person that always says "no".
At large companies, I've rarely found a reason to speak out on a project. Unless it has a considerable effect on my team/work (read: peace of mind), it just doesn't make sense to be the person casting doubt. There's not much ROI for being "right".
If you manage to kill the project before it starts, no one will ever know how bad of a disaster you prevented. If the project succeeds despite your objections, you look like an idiot. And if it fails - as the author notes, that doesn't get remembered either.
As a senior IC, the only real ROI I've found in these situations is when you can have a solution handy if things fail. People love a fixer. Even if you only manage to pull this off once or twice, your perception in the org/company gets a massive boost. "Wow, so-and-so is always thinking ahead."
A basic example I saw at my last company was automated E2E testing in production. My teammate had suggested this to improve our ability to detect regressions, but it was ultimately shot down as not being worth the investment over other features.
A few months later, we had seen multiple instances of users hitting significant issues before we could catch them. My teammate was able to whip out the test framework they had been building on the side, and was immediately showered with praise/organizational support (and I'm sure a great review as well).
The effort required to be ready with the fix is often SO much less than what you need to convince folks the problem exists in the first place. I find it's frequently the only viable option on an individual or team scale.
I've realized that climbing the corporate ladder doesn't make any sense. You put more effort, you take responsibility for stupid people's decisions, and then you get a disproportionately small reward. The smartest move is to find a bottom-tier position where they pay you enough to sustain your desired lifestyle, but where you cannot really be blamed for failures of the management.
If one person thinks this way, many more do. This is typical in large organizations, especially government institutions, because expense of running entire teams at massive costs for no reason is not born by the team but by someone with a much larger budget that has more money than care or completely wrong incentives (the more people I manage, the more important I am, type of orgs). This is organizational gangrene described from the inside and partly how or why it happens. If you are leading an organization and reading this - figure out how to measure and prevent it.
Humans think this way. This isn't a cultural thing, it's human nature. We like positive people and dislike negative people. Ignoring the fact that political capital is a thing won't make it go away.
The dynamics are exactly right, but I would say engineers can't "let" "politically bad" projects fail, because fixing that is, in a very real sense, above their paygrade. That responsibility lies with the executives.
The engineers' role should mostly be as technical advisors, i.e. calling out bad projects for technical reasons (UX, architecture, etc.) But even the seniormost engineers do not have the corporate standing, let alone political cachet, to call out or fix political issues (empire building, infighting between orgs, etc.) They can and should point out these conflicts to leadership (very diplomatically, of course) but should bear no responsibility for the outcomes.
However, as an engineer you should ABSOLUTELY be aware of these dynamics because they will impact your career. Like when the project is canceled with no impact delivered.
The example given of the latent turf war between the product and platform teams might have been avoided via a very clear mandate from senior leadership about who owns what exactly. This would probably have involved some horse-trading about what the org giving up its turf gets in return. (BTW if you've ever wondered "Why so many re-orgs" this is why.) That this didn't happen is a failure on the execs' part.
As an aside, I know this happens in every large company, but somehow it appears to be a lot more common at Google? Or at least Googlers are more open about it. E.g. I observed something similar on that recent post about lessions from Google: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46488819
I've never worked at a company as large as Google but in my experience things can be a little more optimistic than the post. When earn enough trust with your leadership, such as at the staff/architect level, you'll be able to tell them they are wrong more often and they'll listen. It doesn't have to be a "$50,000 check" every time.
That leads to a very important question - Why doesn't leadership always trust their engineers? And there's a very important answer that isn't mentioned in the blog post - Sometimes the engineers are wrong.
Engineers are extremely good at finding flaws. But not so good at understanding the business perspective. Depending on the greater context there are times where it does make sense to move forward with a flawed idea.
So next time you hear an idea that sounds stupid, take a beat to understand more where the idea is coming from. If you get better at discerning the difference between ideas that are actually fine (despite their flaws), versus ideas that need to die, then you'll earn more trust with your org.
Definitely a big tech thing I don’t miss. At a startup everyone is trying to make the company succeed vs pet projects, so giving advice about architectural decisions or helping fellow engineers with areas you have more expertise in is often welcomed. There are always pros and cons, but that type of culture is so much more fun. Even on hard days I love working with people who want to help each other.
Even in startups, sometimes you’ve just got to let the consequences of the things you’ve warned about happen.
I’ve lost too much sleep and fought too many battles and lost too much clout over the years trying to make sure bad things didn’t happen. “Nobody could have foreseen this” is still said, even if there’s a ton of evidence, recommendations, pleading, etc, to keep it from happening.
Not always. I had to learn early in my career that sometimes when the founder says they want your honest opinion on something, your expertise, they're lying and just what you to affirm their ideas. You don't, they get mad, and eventually they have to do a layoff or fire you, simply for disagreeing
Everyone likes to pretend it doesn't happen. But ask around and you'll find many people have experienced it
I'm in the middle of watching this happen. The business owner chose a "low code" platform due to cost and "speed", against my team's recommendations, and now they're needing to do all sorts of customizations which are essentially massive hacks. My team is sitting in our corner writing typescript deploying a dozen or so times per day, and this other team of "low coders" is sitting there trying to figure out how to make curl do things it shouldn't be doing with prod deployments like once per month.
> Your attention is finite, but the capacity for a large company to generate bad ideas is infinite. Speaking from experience, getting too involved in stopping these quickly can make you very cynical about the state of the world. And this is really not a good place to be.
This also applies to the capacity of the industry to generate bad (and evil) ideas.
Now that we're one of the biggest-money fields, there is no end of people thinking/behaving badly.
You'll wear yourself out, calling out all of it.
For example, I fled cryptocurrency entirely when it got overrun with bad faith. But I don't intend to flee AI, and so will have to ration the criticism I have for abuses there.
> The nuclear option is [...]
BTW, be careful in what context you use this idiom. It doesn't always translate well outside the US. (I realized this as soon as the words came out of my mouth, under perhaps the worst possible circumstances.)
Upper management agreed to geoIP blocking of the app, without consulting engineering. Why this matters is that GeoIP blocking is at best a whack-a-mole with constantly updating lists and probabilistic blocklists. And is easy to route around with VPNs.
The verbiage they approved was "geoblocking", not "best effort of geoblocking". Clients expected 100% success rate.
When that didn't work, management had to walk that back. We showed proof of what we did was reasonably doable. That finally taught upper management to at least consult before making grandiouse plans.
I wonder if they really learned that, at least in a durable way. They probably learned "oh this geoblock thing isn't as simple as we thought." But consultation is dilution of decision-making power, and that's what upper management lives for.
No I'm not. Because the people who need this mentality shift are also people who won't listen anyway and have a negative attitude. And the people who already understand this don't need to see this article.
This article resonates with me a lot, but as a senior engineer I would not share it in a big team setting. Even though it's correct, it's too cynical for big team morale. I think it would be worth sharing with peers or managers when discussing whether and how to intervene on a bad project.
The problem tends to be timing. By the time you hear about a project, it's often been approved by multiple layers of management, senior engineer signed off on design, etc.
You might be able to get the engineers to tweak the design, but actually getting it canceled can be hopeless. You'll get told the CEO approved it.
> In large companies, speaking up about what you see as a “bad project” is a good thing. But only in moderation. Sometimes the mark of seniority is realizing that arguing with people who won’t listen isn’t worth it; it’s better to save your counsel.
Open source project maintenance follows a similar model, but with a different set of stakes.
The "price tag" of voicing concerns is lower, yet raise them too often and you still earn a reputation as obstructionist. Meanwhile, the cost of accepting problematic changes can be higher—you may end up maintaining that code long after changing jobs. And unlike corporate politics, the "influence bank account" is public: communications are archived indefinitely.
There is a fascinating shift in how "withdrawals" are calculated:
In a corporate hierarchy, the cost of dissent feels exponential: something like `cost = exp(their_level - your_level)`.
Say, as a Google L3/L4/L5 engineer, opposing L6-L8 feels like trying to make a massive withdrawal with a tiny balance. In contrast, in OSS the cost almost stays constant despite the corporate level difference.
This created a paradox for me: leaving Google means less time for LLVM maintenance, but it also lets me voice objections more freely, without the shadow of internal performance ratings or hierarchical friction.
That said, I know I've been "withdrawing" heavily, including from a lot of previous colleagues.
In a recent LLVM Project Council meeting:
> There is a pattern of behavior here of blocking contributions due to concerns about maintenance cost and design simplicity.
(I appreciate the transparency of making these meetings public, by the way.)
One thing this blog probably misses is what happens when we suggest something to fix a project’s trajectory, they ignore it, but eventually they silently adopt the suggestion and improve the project.
This results in a net loss of ROI: we risk being seen as a negative person, while no one acknowledges our goodwill or instincts, because the project lead presents the improvement as their own win through a strategic change of plan.
The bank account analogy (or "social capital") ignores distinctions between spending and investing, and how these depend on culture.
If you are simply the wrong person in a "toxic" culture, there is no action that can increase your social capital. In a well-functioning culture, constructive criticism would be investment, rather than spending.
I have to question the judgment of the manager talking shit about another team and its leader to a junior engineer. Going and looking at the author's LinkedIn history (it's available via his About page) makes it pretty clear that this was happening within Google.
I think it speaks poorly of their manager's professionalism, and what sort of behavior they consider to be acceptable with regard to colleagues.
If someone shits on the floor, sometimes you have to let it sit and stink until someone else makes them clean it up.
If you clean it up, you're taking responsibility for it that might not be yours to take, and in an organization with many managers, that can permanently wreck your chances for advancement if those above you perceived your involvement as intruding on their territory, or trying to make them look bad, or trying to make the culprit look bad, and so on, and so forth.
Rarely is it "wow, there was a problem and they fixed it, without even being asked!"
Organizations that are rational and have good management let people take responsibility like that, and it's a good thing. Most organizations are not like that, and the bigger they get, the more likely it is you'll have an adversarial, territorial, hyper-political environment with saccharine smiles and backstabbing, and doing anything that even hints at negatively framing a manager, even just in their own minds, is sufficient reason to make it not your problem.
If you have good reasons to fix it, or if it's your problem for reasons that make management look good, you have the opportunity to fix an issue and be appreciated for it. Otherwise, it's just not worth jumping on other teams' grenades.
It'd be nice if everyone was rational and competent and secure and anti-fragile, but humans kinda suck in groups.
Not sure if I read this the same way you did. At least, this didn't read at all to me as "talking shit," but rather sharing their professional opinion on the (un)likely success of the project. Keeping thoughts to yourself isn't professional, it's avoidant. Especially when it has the chance to directly affect you.
Having worked with both kinds, I have generally preferred three-dimensional human beings to cut-outs from a compliance training manual. Being fundamentally kind and collaborative is prerequisite, of course. But so is having a modicum of spite, misanthropy, pettiness, irony, and dark humor. An appreciation for the tragic sense of life. How do you get through the day if all you get from your coworkers are patriotic slogans?
The entire post devolved into a treatise on playing politics and trading political capital in a specific corporate culture.
I’ve seen people who played the game well at Google or Amazon fall completely flat on their ass at a different company, thinking the game hasn’t changed (or that there even is a game), barely lasting a few months on the C suite before being softly moved along.
> You rarely get credit for the disasters you prevented. Because nothing happened, people forget about it quickly.
There is another problem left implicit in the article: clueless people doing drive-by project reviews without any context or understanding of the whole problem domain, and proceeding to give unsolicited and unreflected advice supported by partial knowledge.
Also, sometimes projects with a perfect design end up failing for some reason or another, and projects doomed to fail end up pulling through and succeeding, even if they pile up technical debt. The truth of the matter is that software is soft and can adapt to changes in requirements and design, and with enough work anything can be made to work. Thus any observation on "failure" ends up being superficial opinions based on superficial observations.
I use the phrase "drive-by review" frequently too. As a senior engineer, I worry about doing drive-bys myself. Sometimes my gut tells me something is not quite right about the project, but I just don't know enough about the problem domain or technology/architecture choices to advise definitively.
In this case, I try to question the project owners on their assumptions and whether they have validated them. Usually this line of questioning reveals whether they have "done their homework".
Its almost never correct to rip on a project from a distance. Only two things can happen, one, you are wrong, and the project succeeds. This is a personal catastrophe for your career at that company. Two, you are correct and the project fails. Its rare this will get you enough credibility to make the risk worth it. There are always others that will show up and dogpile as if they "knew" the entire time themselves. You need to be consistently correct about failure to get truly noticed, but then it asks a lot of questions. Why are you still working there? Why don't you have enough influence to prevent it in the first place? "I told you so" rarely accomplishes anything good.
This has some crossover with ageism. In the last years in my org all the senior staff has been put to pasture doing either nothing or confined strictly to whatever they were already doing.
Some part of it is that we are perceived as lazy obstructionist naysayer dinosaurs when we point out any flaws in new projects as the article warns. But the rest is that because some of the elders were effectively semi-retired and doing little, anyone over 40 has been uncritically dumped with them.
So we keep the lights on while all the new shiny stuff is given to fresh juniors that don't ever push back and are happy to say yes, but also can't do it alone, and are lost at sea.
So they don't get anything shipped while we keep polishing our legacy turds and wince every time we accidentally get a glimpse of what they are doing.
I've seen another type of "let projects fail" in my career done by middle managers in a large project. Essentially it takes the form of them saying "the larger project we are working under is probably going to fail. When it does, I want our component to be useful for whatever comes next". And, the surprising thing is that this often worked. The project itself fails, but most of the work done on it still ended up being used.
Learnt from experience that when you can foresee a project failure and you don't have any power, stay quiet and start applying for new role before the blame game, retros and political chaos. It's not worth it, you're just an employee and it's not your company.
Companies need ways for individuals to bet against projects and people that are likely to fail.
So much of the overhead in a large organization is from bad decisions, or people who usually make bad decisions remaining in positions of power.
Imagine if instead of having to speak up, and risk political capital, you could simply place a bet, and carry on with your work.
Leadership can see that people are betting against a project, and make updates in real time.
Good decision makers could earn significant bonuses, even if they don't have the title/role to make the decisions.
If someone makes more by betting than their manager takes home in salary, maybe it's time for an adjustment.
Such a system is clearly aligned with the interests of the shareholders, and the rank-and-file. But the stranglehold that bureaucrats have over most companies would prevent it from being put in place.
Allowing people to bet against projects creates some perverse incentives, like encouraging someone to actively sabotage a project. It can create some very toxic conflict within an organization.
As a consultant I've been brought in on both good and bad projects.
In one example, I figured out pretty soon the project was only kept alive because it was deemed high priority by upper management.
I gave the engineering manager and project manager my recommendations for how mitigate a few of the highest risk problems, and maybe salvage something.
After not hearing back from anyone for a month I realized that nobody was going to risk making waves for an effort they'd already decided was going to fail.
Mostly they were positioning themselves to not be blamed at the post mortem.
Knowing something is wonky and knowing how to fix something wonky effectively without pissing anyone are completely different level of tasks though.
Knowing things is bad only requires knowledge of the product itself. But fixing it requires understanding of the whole infrastructure and members around the project.
An outsider can't do it. And the insider don't necessarily think the project is bad from his perspective. You would have to argue with him to convince him the project is bad. Which really don't bring any value to the outsider themselves. And it can even be harmful.
I don't think it is just big companies. I worked for startups and small companies; when there are a number of managers/VP's involved there is trouble. Bad ideas persist because managers/leaders do not throw stones at each other. As an engineer I tend to just do what makes sense then justify it afterwards; I have trouble with managers who are just administrators with no relevant technical background.
If the author had replaced the term "UX" with design, then the article would make more sense to me. To continue with the misuse of UX in IT to mean fancy and unnecessary design seems quite strange, because design has always been a factor in how successful projects will be (not just the interface but the whole process of delivery on an outcome).
reminds me of a friend who worked in japan (an american). something was wrong in a project and nobody would say anything. Turns out he was the one to say something. Japanese culture won't speak up, but a foreigner can make "mistakes" like speaking uncomfortable truths, which breaks the logjam.
Nice article. I like the influence bank account analogy. I have worked with a guy who would go into influence debt and I think it hurt his career. He would almost always be right; very sharp, but he would block people and get on their nerves very often, eventually moving to another team.
Not your company not your problem. This article misses the point that your senior engineers often do not have the political power to push back on bad ideas at most med-large orgs.
Simple as that. You can offer people your opinion on the matter but that's it. Some people invest way too much on what is essentially someone else's business. You are a replaceable cog, never forget that.
When I read the title I wondered “does this really happen?” And then I read a few lines and remembered “yes, I definitely did this all the time”.
The reality is that a lot of people put ideas forward solely for the purpose of getting attention and trying to get promoted. A lot of those ideas are full of hope and enthusiasm and lacking in fundamentals. But to shoot it down makes you come across as a nay-sayer, or a Debbie-downer. Even though you are sure it’s going nowhere, the reality is that it’s a lot easier to let the market prove you right.
Less hurt feelings and interpersonal drama that way. Seems wasteful, but at the end of the day you got data and learnings that you didn’t have otherwise. So hey, silver linings.
Except they don't fail. The other day I got told that a bunch of management were extremely pleased with a quick and dirty implementation of a project, whose development was frozen before it had even met the initial requirements and it just makes me think again and again: what am I even doing this all for? My paycheck?
I've seen the opposite as well, and at a high level.
In this case it was an incompetent VP of Engineering who was seriously lacking domain knowledge when a new set of projects outside the norm came into the company. Instead of having a professional attitude, understanding his limitations and convening domain experts to help him and the team move forward, he actively opposed and derailed the project.
What's sad is that we, as external engineering consultants, were yelling at the top of our lungs trying to make management understand the serious liability this had revealed. They were absolutely blind to it until even a toddler could recognize the issue.
This cost the company millions of dollars as well as market reputation.
I think he is an Uber driver now, it's been a few years.
As technical people we tend to have a technical outlook to this. However, after a certain threshold - say $1M - these projects become political things rather than a simple technical issue.
From a creator's standpoint, a software project exists to solve a problem - or at least make the lives of the software users easier. But the moment a company bigwig clique decides to make money out of company, "bad" projects pop up.
To my chance, I experienced this for three times. The signs are nearly the same. The company has a lot of workflows - usually handled by excel and/or internally developed apps that actually reflect those workflows. Then comes the buzzword team proclaiming miracles, snake oil and an app that will even cure the dandruff - just sign here. Of course, the clique has their cut - that's why they say yes or advice the board to say yes.
Then begins the grueling process of "analyzing workflows". Do they contact the actual users who are doing the work? Hell. No. What they do is, create a "Project Team" - usually hired anew, with no information about how the company does its work - and they try to "understand" the workflows. Then it becomes like that game, user says one thing, project team understands another and says a different thing and the outcome is a different product that solves a problem but not the user's problem.
Of course, this process burns money. You gotta do development, you gotta have a server to run the app, you have to book meeting rooms in hotels to train the users, you have to create fliers internally to promote the app - and create pdfs, many many pdfs to make the users understand how the app works. And no one asks "hey, if this app is reflecting our workflows... why are we getting this training?"
Because at the end of the day, this app only exists to make some people money. And after a certain point, no one dares to say anything because of all the money spent. An ambassador who says "the app we spent $10M does not work" will be get shot. People get retired with the f-you money they gained and the company tries to work with the app they "built" usually it ends up hiring an internal team and do it from the zero - and the expensive shit becomes a thing nobody talks about, a company omerta so to speak.
Letting it die is the self-serving, career-optimizing, amoral take. But it's more ethical to stand up for what's right even at personal cost. A bunch of people wasting years of their life, not to mention all the resources, is a tragedy worth avoiding.
Of course, the wisdom of taking the person risk is a continuum. In some cases it is and in some it isn't. But.. To omit the ethical angle entirely seems like a bad take.
I don't understand this point of view. Most of the people aren't wasting their time. They're getting paid for the effort. The business is taking a risk, and pays people to realize their vision. Some visions are bad.
Getting personally attached and emotionally invested in work you get paid for is a risk too. There's nothing wrong with that. But there's also nothing wrong putting your time in and churning out requirements if that's what you want.
You can voice your concerns, but should not go fighting, especially at personal cost. It could be that you may be wrong in your assessment, and the project turns out to be successful, or it could be that you may have been right for the wrong reasons, or it could be that you were right all along.
In any case, you are part of a company, and that means recognizing that yours is only one of many opinions driving strategy and allocating resources. If you find your self often needing to stand up against others for your beliefs, then you are probably not in the right company.
Nah, because everyone is an expert sometimes. They don't listen and you gotta let them touch the hot stove. Sometimes there's not much you can do. Sometimes people trust in random blog posts or now AI more than the people they work with. So unless you can get through to them with an idea that isn't your own... You gotta let them touch that stove.
Just going to be brutally honest - we lost the art of software design and architecture. Clean code is pretty much dead. As someone who has contributed to many OSS projects and built frameworks...I just don't see this anymore. All of my colleagues have moved on. Conferences used to be full of great info and research, but the story flipped there. Now they are all about marketing, treating speakers like crap, not willing to cover various expenses because they believe they are doing the speaker a favor. Also factor in the industry supply and demand issues and desire to just "move fast and break things" and voila - we have a lot of really bad software.
I mean the supply and demand problem was so bad that you had people so narrowly focused that their expectations were absolutely wild. Expecting wild titles out of college or practically out of college. How many "senior" engineers are there who have 3 years of experience or less? How many principals? CTOs? Tons. It's wild and a horrible expectation. Then this cohort of people couldn't possibly fathom actually learning and putting in time so they attacked the people who were simply around longer. I guess ageism but really that naive and toxic phrase you'd hear all over "jack of all trades, master of none." People just couldn't get over the fact that others knew more than a week's worth of YouTube content...and I get it, the large companies hired many people to do one specific job. It's just how the industry supported the insane demand. You "specialize" ... If you want to call it that. As a result, I do not often hire people from large companies because they expect way too much money and do far too little.
So all of this is to say quality has fallen off a cliff and very few know any better. It's really a result of industry demand.
I think many senior engineers let bad projects fail because they don't actually know how to save them. But yes, I'm agree, there's also no incentive.
Here's where I love AI. I'm hoping that AI can help fill some skill gaps, provide education, and separate the people who have motivation from those who don't. At the end of the day, I hate to say it - many engineers took advantage of people. Maybe not intentionally of course, it what was the market would bear. I think AI is going to put an end to the gravy train and as a programmer of over 20 years? I'm thrilled.
Will AI prevent bad projects though? No. Because we still have the same problems. Few programmers are going to plan, communicate, and even bother to put forth the effort to ask about software design. They're going to crank out AI slop.
You know my bet? My bet is that product minded people who didn't understand coding will end up out performing most programmers. In fact, the more junior people on my team absolutely shred many of the "senior" programmers. So much so that I'm faced with a very very difficult gut wrenching challenge. Upskill the "senior" programmers or let them go, because it's just bad for the business when you just look at the numbers. I wouldn't be doing my job and be protecting the company if one of those two outcomes didn't happen. I'm not going to protect people who don't want to lift a finger.
A great reckoning is coming. I think there's going to be a Renaissance from an unexpected cohort of people who will produce good projects again. It won't be the "senior" programmers.
BikiniPrince|1 month ago
I know one project did not have my involvement and couldn’t have succeeded without my knowledge. They were so bad they would work in questions casually to their actual work.
I started avoiding all of them when I found out management had been dumping on my team and praising theirs. It’s just such a slap in the face because they could not have done well and their implementation was horrible.
BeetleB|1 month ago
I often say "Sometimes, you have to let the manager fail."
Some managers don't like being told their ideas won't work. If you refuse or argue, you are seen as the reason his idea failed. I've found what works best with them is to proceed with the work, but keep them informed very frequently, so they can see how things evolve, and will be able to see the failure you had anticipated a long time ago before it is too late.
Then you're seen in a positive light, and he'll separate you from the project failure.
gizmo686|1 month ago
There have been a bunch of times in my career where I've allowed people under me to "fail". Often times, an individual failing at something is just not that expensive; while being highly educational. Sometimes, it turns out that there approach actually worked, and we as a group gained a new bit of institutional knowledge.
bodegajed|1 month ago
ljm|1 month ago
Gotta accept that a likely outcome is that they do fail and they don’t learn and you have to let them go. But if you tried to support them beforehand, did what you could, at least you can have a clear conscience.
dpkirchner|1 month ago
Yup -- I've learned a lot from my failures. Far be it for me to deny others that experience. Assuming their failures won't result in the company imploding or other serious harm, of course.
7402|1 month ago
Similar to one I heard about navigating this sort of thing: “People have to gather their own data.”
Aurornis|1 month ago
I can’t emphasize this part enough.
I’ve been part of some projects where someone external to the team went on a crusade to shut our work down because they disagreed with it. When we pushed through, shipped it, and it worked well they lost a lot of credibility.
Be careful about what you spend your reputational capital on.
asa400|1 month ago
I went through this at a corporate job not too long ago for the first time. One of the more insane things I've dealt with so far in my career. I know life isn't always sunshine and rainbows, but up to that point I'd never seen that level of naked, antisocial self-interest in an org that was ostensibly created to allow people to cooperate toward solving some problem for our customers. Call me naive, but it was really disheartening.
tyleo|1 month ago
If I see something heading toward failure, I let people know they may want to consider a different approach. That’s it. There’s no need to be harsh or belabor the point but it’s better to speak up than to quietly watch a train wreck unfold.
dasil003|1 month ago
This clause is doing a lot of heavy lifting. One needs to have good judgement about when and how to help. A lot of people can imagine how things could go better if a bunch of other people changed their behavior in surprisingly simple ways. It's a much smaller subset of people that can correctly push the right buttons to get the other people to actually make those changes succeed at a systematic level.
In a small org it's actually not too hard for good ideas and feedback to get traction. In a larger org for broad concerns it can be fiendeshly difficult. Often the reason why a large project will fail is only truly knowable by a few senior technical people with enough experience and broad context to see the forrest for the trees. Past a certain volume of people involved you can not explain to people why it will fail fast enough to offset the army of clueless stakeholders incentivized to socialize a good-sounding narrative convincing everyone that we need to try. In these cases reductive explanations with the right counter-narrative can work, but they require significant reputational and/or hard authority to pull off.
This is why the article advocates picking your battles in a large org. Often the chance of actually helping is much lower than destroying your own reputation, even if you're right.
loudmax|1 month ago
omgJustTest|1 month ago
The point the author makes is that sometimes you are not in control of those projects. Therefore "letting them fail" seems a false choice constructed by the author.
A better title "You don't know what other people are doing and you don't know why unless it is your job to do so."
DetroitThrow|1 month ago
Yes, it seems cruel and also counter to ensuring the org succeeds. Your perceived ability as an engineer might go up if your colleagues fail, but your colleagues failing when you knew a possible way for things to go better is harmful to your org's goals and culture. It only takes a small few failures for the bar to be lowered to the point that you yourself may not want to work there.
Even sometimes when other people's projects are NOT your problem and they aren't seeking feedback, sometimes you SHOULD make their flaws your problem if it is of crucial importance to your org. Knowing when you should expend your energy on an initiative like that is in itself a mark of seniority.
The blog itself mentions this a bit.
JohnFen|1 month ago
This is what I do as well, in writing. Then I drop it. Professionalism demands that I say something. That's part of what I'm being paid to do. But experience has taught me that it's almost certainly not going to change anything, so I just do my duty and move on.
racl101|1 month ago
al_borland|1 month ago
Funny enough, 2 years after I was told to get on board or keep my mouth shut, customers complained about the very thing I said they would complain about. I felt slightly vindicated, and they had to rearchitect the whole thing to try and accomplish it. It’s been 5 years since the project started and they still haven’t fully shipped the feature.
dwaltrip|1 month ago
I think you both are right in different ways.
northfield27|1 month ago
If you have the power (as the post mentions - like a CEO) you can suggest, direct or butcher a project and no one would see you as a negative person.
But you can get butchered when you don't have the authority to poke around your concerns.
I would prefer to see the ship sink instead of shooting myself in the foot and risking my influence and credibility - as another comment on this thread said "Sometimes, you have to let people fail".
raccoonhands|1 month ago
raw_anon_1111|1 month ago
When I was officially the architect at two companies between 2016-2020, I felt comfortable stating my opinions on the “how” of the underlying infrastructure and cross cutting concerns and shared code. But even then I didn’t give my unsolicited opinion to the team leads who built for instance the user interface or the business logic when that wasn’t my responsibility.
The second saying is “The avalanche has already started. The pebbles no longer have a vote”. If a decision was decided by my skip manager or above, I’m not saying anything. I’m going to go along with the program.
I’ve been working for consulting departments (at AWS) and then (full time) at consulting companies since 2020. When I was a mid level consultant (L5) at AWS, for larger projects where I was assigned to lead one slice of work (a workstream), if it didn’t affect me, I said nothing. I was just trying to keep my head down to get through my four year initial contract.
I definitely didn’t stick my nose into projects I wasn’t assigned to.
Now I’m a staff consultant at a third party consulting company. I still go by the same rule. I keep my mouth shut about internal corporate decisions, I tow the company line, I don’t give unsolicited advice about other projects and I lead my own projects.
There is one specific speciality I’m working on building up within the company where I will subtly interject. But even then, it’s only because I have the blessing of C suite and they reached out to me.
ossa-ma|1 month ago
In any other setting you can't afford to watch money and motivation burn just to stay 'politically solvent'.
(Lalit is very good at fitting complex corporate dynamics in a single blog post though.)
moregrist|1 month ago
If you’re constantly nitpicking and expressing concerns, you become “that person” who’s constantly negative about other people’s ideas. After a while people tune out; they already know that you’ll find “problems.” We all know these people. No one really likes working with them. Thus they’re _not effective_ at what they’re trying to do.
Ultimately you mostly get credit for shipping things that work, and only rarely for preventing the mistakes of other people.
At its core, what the blog post is saying is: keep your powder dry for when it matters. Not every problem is going to make the company insolvent. Not every concern will prove correct. Pick your battles strategically.
It’s good advice no matter the size or nature of the org.
unknown|1 month ago
[deleted]
hackable_sand|1 month ago
crakhamster01|1 month ago
At large companies, I've rarely found a reason to speak out on a project. Unless it has a considerable effect on my team/work (read: peace of mind), it just doesn't make sense to be the person casting doubt. There's not much ROI for being "right".
If you manage to kill the project before it starts, no one will ever know how bad of a disaster you prevented. If the project succeeds despite your objections, you look like an idiot. And if it fails - as the author notes, that doesn't get remembered either.
As a senior IC, the only real ROI I've found in these situations is when you can have a solution handy if things fail. People love a fixer. Even if you only manage to pull this off once or twice, your perception in the org/company gets a massive boost. "Wow, so-and-so is always thinking ahead."
A basic example I saw at my last company was automated E2E testing in production. My teammate had suggested this to improve our ability to detect regressions, but it was ultimately shot down as not being worth the investment over other features.
A few months later, we had seen multiple instances of users hitting significant issues before we could catch them. My teammate was able to whip out the test framework they had been building on the side, and was immediately showered with praise/organizational support (and I'm sure a great review as well).
glaslong|1 month ago
anal_reactor|1 month ago
adev_|1 month ago
That's true. And it is currently one of the main reason why startups are so efficient compared to MegaCorps.
In small companies, it takes few engineers voicing out ' this is bullshit ' to stop a disaster.
In large corps, it takes 2y, 10M USD and a team in burnout to reach the same result.
And the main reason is the usual source of all sins: *Politics*.
dzink|1 month ago
stavros|1 month ago
keeda|1 month ago
The engineers' role should mostly be as technical advisors, i.e. calling out bad projects for technical reasons (UX, architecture, etc.) But even the seniormost engineers do not have the corporate standing, let alone political cachet, to call out or fix political issues (empire building, infighting between orgs, etc.) They can and should point out these conflicts to leadership (very diplomatically, of course) but should bear no responsibility for the outcomes.
However, as an engineer you should ABSOLUTELY be aware of these dynamics because they will impact your career. Like when the project is canceled with no impact delivered.
The example given of the latent turf war between the product and platform teams might have been avoided via a very clear mandate from senior leadership about who owns what exactly. This would probably have involved some horse-trading about what the org giving up its turf gets in return. (BTW if you've ever wondered "Why so many re-orgs" this is why.) That this didn't happen is a failure on the execs' part.
As an aside, I know this happens in every large company, but somehow it appears to be a lot more common at Google? Or at least Googlers are more open about it. E.g. I observed something similar on that recent post about lessions from Google: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46488819
dwaltrip|1 month ago
* Know your audience. Saying things they are unable to hear is a waste of energy.
* Choose your battles carefully.
The flip side:
* Trust your gut
* Speak authentically and with an aim to help (not convince)
* Don’t be overly invested or dependent on the actions and reactions of others (can be hard to do if someone has power over you)
Balancing these things is something I’m learning about…
t-writescode|1 month ago
Thank you for that wording.
apf6|1 month ago
I've never worked at a company as large as Google but in my experience things can be a little more optimistic than the post. When earn enough trust with your leadership, such as at the staff/architect level, you'll be able to tell them they are wrong more often and they'll listen. It doesn't have to be a "$50,000 check" every time.
That leads to a very important question - Why doesn't leadership always trust their engineers? And there's a very important answer that isn't mentioned in the blog post - Sometimes the engineers are wrong.
Engineers are extremely good at finding flaws. But not so good at understanding the business perspective. Depending on the greater context there are times where it does make sense to move forward with a flawed idea.
So next time you hear an idea that sounds stupid, take a beat to understand more where the idea is coming from. If you get better at discerning the difference between ideas that are actually fine (despite their flaws), versus ideas that need to die, then you'll earn more trust with your org.
wordsunite|1 month ago
t-writescode|1 month ago
I’ve lost too much sleep and fought too many battles and lost too much clout over the years trying to make sure bad things didn’t happen. “Nobody could have foreseen this” is still said, even if there’s a ton of evidence, recommendations, pleading, etc, to keep it from happening.
paradox460|1 month ago
Everyone likes to pretend it doesn't happen. But ask around and you'll find many people have experienced it
throwforfeds|1 month ago
neilv|1 month ago
This also applies to the capacity of the industry to generate bad (and evil) ideas.
Now that we're one of the biggest-money fields, there is no end of people thinking/behaving badly.
You'll wear yourself out, calling out all of it.
For example, I fled cryptocurrency entirely when it got overrun with bad faith. But I don't intend to flee AI, and so will have to ration the criticism I have for abuses there.
> The nuclear option is [...]
BTW, be careful in what context you use this idiom. It doesn't always translate well outside the US. (I realized this as soon as the words came out of my mouth, under perhaps the worst possible circumstances.)
mystraline|1 month ago
Upper management agreed to geoIP blocking of the app, without consulting engineering. Why this matters is that GeoIP blocking is at best a whack-a-mole with constantly updating lists and probabilistic blocklists. And is easy to route around with VPNs.
The verbiage they approved was "geoblocking", not "best effort of geoblocking". Clients expected 100% success rate.
When that didn't work, management had to walk that back. We showed proof of what we did was reasonably doable. That finally taught upper management to at least consult before making grandiouse plans.
shermantanktop|1 month ago
LaFolle|1 month ago
jetru|1 month ago
nickm12|1 month ago
nitwit005|1 month ago
You might be able to get the engineers to tweak the design, but actually getting it canceled can be hopeless. You'll get told the CEO approved it.
jt2190|1 month ago
x3n0ph3n3|1 month ago
I often use the term "social capital." You have to be careful with how you spend it.
MaskRay|1 month ago
The "price tag" of voicing concerns is lower, yet raise them too often and you still earn a reputation as obstructionist. Meanwhile, the cost of accepting problematic changes can be higher—you may end up maintaining that code long after changing jobs. And unlike corporate politics, the "influence bank account" is public: communications are archived indefinitely.
There is a fascinating shift in how "withdrawals" are calculated: In a corporate hierarchy, the cost of dissent feels exponential: something like `cost = exp(their_level - your_level)`. Say, as a Google L3/L4/L5 engineer, opposing L6-L8 feels like trying to make a massive withdrawal with a tiny balance. In contrast, in OSS the cost almost stays constant despite the corporate level difference.
This created a paradox for me: leaving Google means less time for LLVM maintenance, but it also lets me voice objections more freely, without the shadow of internal performance ratings or hierarchical friction.
That said, I know I've been "withdrawing" heavily, including from a lot of previous colleagues. In a recent LLVM Project Council meeting:
> There is a pattern of behavior here of blocking contributions due to concerns about maintenance cost and design simplicity.
(I appreciate the transparency of making these meetings public, by the way.)
I had to respond at https://discourse.llvm.org/t/llvm-project-council-meeting-no...
northfield27|1 month ago
This results in a net loss of ROI: we risk being seen as a negative person, while no one acknowledges our goodwill or instincts, because the project lead presents the improvement as their own win through a strategic change of plan.
phyzome|1 month ago
- It will adversely affect me directly (e.g. cause me to get paged a lot)
- It will harm users or other people outside of the org (various kinds of externalities)
Otherwise it's the company's problem. (Of course, I'm generally happy to give advice and critiques if asked.)
yobbo|1 month ago
If you are simply the wrong person in a "toxic" culture, there is no action that can increase your social capital. In a well-functioning culture, constructive criticism would be investment, rather than spending.
aaronbrethorst|1 month ago
I think it speaks poorly of their manager's professionalism, and what sort of behavior they consider to be acceptable with regard to colleagues.
observationist|1 month ago
If you clean it up, you're taking responsibility for it that might not be yours to take, and in an organization with many managers, that can permanently wreck your chances for advancement if those above you perceived your involvement as intruding on their territory, or trying to make them look bad, or trying to make the culprit look bad, and so on, and so forth.
Rarely is it "wow, there was a problem and they fixed it, without even being asked!"
Organizations that are rational and have good management let people take responsibility like that, and it's a good thing. Most organizations are not like that, and the bigger they get, the more likely it is you'll have an adversarial, territorial, hyper-political environment with saccharine smiles and backstabbing, and doing anything that even hints at negatively framing a manager, even just in their own minds, is sufficient reason to make it not your problem.
If you have good reasons to fix it, or if it's your problem for reasons that make management look good, you have the opportunity to fix an issue and be appreciated for it. Otherwise, it's just not worth jumping on other teams' grenades.
It'd be nice if everyone was rational and competent and secure and anti-fragile, but humans kinda suck in groups.
mjlawson|1 month ago
atdt|1 month ago
ljm|1 month ago
I’ve seen people who played the game well at Google or Amazon fall completely flat on their ass at a different company, thinking the game hasn’t changed (or that there even is a game), barely lasting a few months on the C suite before being softly moved along.
cidd|1 month ago
dionian|1 month ago
dimator|1 month ago
locknitpicker|1 month ago
> You rarely get credit for the disasters you prevented. Because nothing happened, people forget about it quickly.
There is another problem left implicit in the article: clueless people doing drive-by project reviews without any context or understanding of the whole problem domain, and proceeding to give unsolicited and unreflected advice supported by partial knowledge.
Also, sometimes projects with a perfect design end up failing for some reason or another, and projects doomed to fail end up pulling through and succeeding, even if they pile up technical debt. The truth of the matter is that software is soft and can adapt to changes in requirements and design, and with enough work anything can be made to work. Thus any observation on "failure" ends up being superficial opinions based on superficial observations.
nickm12|1 month ago
In this case, I try to question the project owners on their assumptions and whether they have validated them. Usually this line of questioning reveals whether they have "done their homework".
strangescript|1 month ago
fcatalan|1 month ago
Some part of it is that we are perceived as lazy obstructionist naysayer dinosaurs when we point out any flaws in new projects as the article warns. But the rest is that because some of the elders were effectively semi-retired and doing little, anyone over 40 has been uncritically dumped with them.
So we keep the lights on while all the new shiny stuff is given to fresh juniors that don't ever push back and are happy to say yes, but also can't do it alone, and are lost at sea.
So they don't get anything shipped while we keep polishing our legacy turds and wince every time we accidentally get a glimpse of what they are doing.
gizmo686|1 month ago
senti_sentient|1 month ago
alphazard|1 month ago
Imagine if instead of having to speak up, and risk political capital, you could simply place a bet, and carry on with your work. Leadership can see that people are betting against a project, and make updates in real time. Good decision makers could earn significant bonuses, even if they don't have the title/role to make the decisions. If someone makes more by betting than their manager takes home in salary, maybe it's time for an adjustment.
Such a system is clearly aligned with the interests of the shareholders, and the rank-and-file. But the stranglehold that bureaucrats have over most companies would prevent it from being put in place.
x3n0ph3n3|1 month ago
chc4|1 month ago
cratermoon|1 month ago
mmis1000|1 month ago
Knowing things is bad only requires knowledge of the product itself. But fixing it requires understanding of the whole infrastructure and members around the project.
An outsider can't do it. And the insider don't necessarily think the project is bad from his perspective. You would have to argue with him to convince him the project is bad. Which really don't bring any value to the outsider themselves. And it can even be harmful.
aussieguy1234|1 month ago
There's a good chance that when inevitably fail, the team will be laid off.
So beware of shiny new projects until they've proven themselves.
roba6|1 month ago
s4074433|1 month ago
m463|1 month ago
resonious|1 month ago
anarticle|1 month ago
bossyTeacher|1 month ago
Simple as that. You can offer people your opinion on the matter but that's it. Some people invest way too much on what is essentially someone else's business. You are a replaceable cog, never forget that.
cm2012|1 month ago
archeantus|1 month ago
The reality is that a lot of people put ideas forward solely for the purpose of getting attention and trying to get promoted. A lot of those ideas are full of hope and enthusiasm and lacking in fundamentals. But to shoot it down makes you come across as a nay-sayer, or a Debbie-downer. Even though you are sure it’s going nowhere, the reality is that it’s a lot easier to let the market prove you right.
Less hurt feelings and interpersonal drama that way. Seems wasteful, but at the end of the day you got data and learnings that you didn’t have otherwise. So hey, silver linings.
J-Kuhn|1 month ago
smrtinsert|1 month ago
thewileyone|1 month ago
fennecbutt|1 month ago
robomartin|1 month ago
In this case it was an incompetent VP of Engineering who was seriously lacking domain knowledge when a new set of projects outside the norm came into the company. Instead of having a professional attitude, understanding his limitations and convening domain experts to help him and the team move forward, he actively opposed and derailed the project.
What's sad is that we, as external engineering consultants, were yelling at the top of our lungs trying to make management understand the serious liability this had revealed. They were absolutely blind to it until even a toddler could recognize the issue.
This cost the company millions of dollars as well as market reputation.
I think he is an Uber driver now, it's been a few years.
KnuthIsGod|1 month ago
f4stjack|1 month ago
From a creator's standpoint, a software project exists to solve a problem - or at least make the lives of the software users easier. But the moment a company bigwig clique decides to make money out of company, "bad" projects pop up.
To my chance, I experienced this for three times. The signs are nearly the same. The company has a lot of workflows - usually handled by excel and/or internally developed apps that actually reflect those workflows. Then comes the buzzword team proclaiming miracles, snake oil and an app that will even cure the dandruff - just sign here. Of course, the clique has their cut - that's why they say yes or advice the board to say yes.
Then begins the grueling process of "analyzing workflows". Do they contact the actual users who are doing the work? Hell. No. What they do is, create a "Project Team" - usually hired anew, with no information about how the company does its work - and they try to "understand" the workflows. Then it becomes like that game, user says one thing, project team understands another and says a different thing and the outcome is a different product that solves a problem but not the user's problem.
Of course, this process burns money. You gotta do development, you gotta have a server to run the app, you have to book meeting rooms in hotels to train the users, you have to create fliers internally to promote the app - and create pdfs, many many pdfs to make the users understand how the app works. And no one asks "hey, if this app is reflecting our workflows... why are we getting this training?"
Because at the end of the day, this app only exists to make some people money. And after a certain point, no one dares to say anything because of all the money spent. An ambassador who says "the app we spent $10M does not work" will be get shot. People get retired with the f-you money they gained and the company tries to work with the app they "built" usually it ends up hiring an internal team and do it from the zero - and the expensive shit becomes a thing nobody talks about, a company omerta so to speak.
ajkjk|1 month ago
Of course, the wisdom of taking the person risk is a continuum. In some cases it is and in some it isn't. But.. To omit the ethical angle entirely seems like a bad take.
recursive|1 month ago
Getting personally attached and emotionally invested in work you get paid for is a risk too. There's nothing wrong with that. But there's also nothing wrong putting your time in and churning out requirements if that's what you want.
michael_j_x|1 month ago
rgmerk|1 month ago
tom_m|1 month ago
acuozzo|1 month ago
Is it? We live in a world in which social safety nets are eroding; an economically-divided one in which the middle class is rapidly disappearing.
These things (e.g. bullshit projects/jobs) are a form of "white collar welfare", no?
That's not bad. It's not like we're actually going to fix the underlying problem.
Perhaps another bored patent clerk will use his downtime to change the world.
tyleo|1 month ago
Depending on scale, a couple large train wrecks may take the company out and leave you unemployed.
bossyTeacher|1 month ago
Employment is a business transaction not a transaction based on ethics viewpoints
whattheheckheck|1 month ago
abtinf|1 month ago
dweebfark|1 month ago
tom_m|1 month ago
I mean the supply and demand problem was so bad that you had people so narrowly focused that their expectations were absolutely wild. Expecting wild titles out of college or practically out of college. How many "senior" engineers are there who have 3 years of experience or less? How many principals? CTOs? Tons. It's wild and a horrible expectation. Then this cohort of people couldn't possibly fathom actually learning and putting in time so they attacked the people who were simply around longer. I guess ageism but really that naive and toxic phrase you'd hear all over "jack of all trades, master of none." People just couldn't get over the fact that others knew more than a week's worth of YouTube content...and I get it, the large companies hired many people to do one specific job. It's just how the industry supported the insane demand. You "specialize" ... If you want to call it that. As a result, I do not often hire people from large companies because they expect way too much money and do far too little.
So all of this is to say quality has fallen off a cliff and very few know any better. It's really a result of industry demand.
I think many senior engineers let bad projects fail because they don't actually know how to save them. But yes, I'm agree, there's also no incentive.
Here's where I love AI. I'm hoping that AI can help fill some skill gaps, provide education, and separate the people who have motivation from those who don't. At the end of the day, I hate to say it - many engineers took advantage of people. Maybe not intentionally of course, it what was the market would bear. I think AI is going to put an end to the gravy train and as a programmer of over 20 years? I'm thrilled.
Will AI prevent bad projects though? No. Because we still have the same problems. Few programmers are going to plan, communicate, and even bother to put forth the effort to ask about software design. They're going to crank out AI slop.
You know my bet? My bet is that product minded people who didn't understand coding will end up out performing most programmers. In fact, the more junior people on my team absolutely shred many of the "senior" programmers. So much so that I'm faced with a very very difficult gut wrenching challenge. Upskill the "senior" programmers or let them go, because it's just bad for the business when you just look at the numbers. I wouldn't be doing my job and be protecting the company if one of those two outcomes didn't happen. I'm not going to protect people who don't want to lift a finger.
A great reckoning is coming. I think there's going to be a Renaissance from an unexpected cohort of people who will produce good projects again. It won't be the "senior" programmers.
bubblerme|1 month ago
Ericson2314|1 month ago