TL;DR
Senior engineers often withhold objections to projects not because they lack insight but because influence is limited and costly. The essay argues for treating influence like a bank account and choosing carefully when to spend it based on proximity, team impact and company-wide risk.
What happened
An experienced engineer reflects on why senior technical staff sometimes allow projects they see as flawed to proceed. Early in their career they questioned why senior colleagues didn’t intervene when a project seemed misguided; over time they learned that being right is not the same as being effective. The author sketches several categories of “bad projects” — poor UX, overengineered or mischosen technology, and politically driven efforts — and warns that whether a project is bad can be subjective until much later. They recount a high-profile example at Google where a technically elegant project failed because it required a flagship product team to surrender control of a core user flow, making the plan politically untenable. The essay outlines the personal and political costs of repeatedly raising objections and proposes a strategic framework for when to invest social capital.
Why it matters
- Unchecked political or design problems can cause long, costly projects that ultimately pivot or are shut down.
- Senior engineers’ decisions about when to intervene shape which technical and product risks are addressed.
- Overusing influence can erode an engineer’s ability to affect important future decisions.
- A deliberate approach helps balance rapid shipping culture with the need to prevent high-impact failures.
Key facts
- The author defines “bad projects” in three broad categories: UX, technical, and political problems.
- Judgments about a project’s quality are often subjective and may only become clear years after launch.
- A cited example at Google involved a technically strong project that failed due to political friction over control of a core user flow.
- Companies typically have a bias for action: raising concerns slows progress and is often ignored unless the issue is large.
- Repeatedly opposing projects can label an engineer as negative and harm their influence and relationships.
- The author recommends treating influence like a bank account, making small and large ‘withdrawals’ selectively.
- Three factors to weigh before speaking up are proximity to the project, impact on your team, and the potential company-wide blast radius.
- Overdrawing influence leads to ‘political bankruptcy’: exclusion from meetings and loss of leverage.
- Seniority can create confident opinions, but the author warns to check whether you have real expertise before judging.
What to watch next
- Projects that require another team to give up control of a core user flow — a sign of political risk.
- Initiatives that repeatedly miss launch targets and are repeatedly reprioritized before an eventual pivot.
- Not confirmed in the source
- Not confirmed in the source
Quick glossary
- Bias for action: An organizational tendency to prioritize rapid delivery and movement over extended deliberation.
- Platform team: A group that builds shared infrastructure or services used by other product teams.
- Political risk (in product work): The chance that organizational priorities, ownership disputes or promotions affect a project’s viability independent of technical merits.
- Social capital (in engineering): The trust, reputation and influence an individual builds that allow them to persuade others or shape decisions.
- Technical blast radius: The extent of technical or operational impact if a project fails or introduces problems.
Reader FAQ
Should senior engineers always speak up when they see a bad project?
No. The source argues they should be selective and weigh the costs of intervening against potential benefits.
How should an engineer decide whether to intervene?
Assess your expertise, then consider proximity to the project, the impact on your team, and the potential company-wide consequences.
What are the risks of objecting too often?
You can be labeled negative, burn relationships, deplete influence, and end up excluded from future decision-making.
Is it possible to stop every bad project?
No. The essay explains that a single engineer’s attention and influence are limited relative to the number of questionable initiatives that arise.
Why Senior Engineers Let Bad Projects Fail Jan 13, 2026 · Essay When I was a junior engineer, my manager would occasionally confide his frustrations to me in our weekly…
Sources
Related posts
- Why Senior Engineers Often Choose Not to Stop Projects They Deem Poor
- Meta Layoffs Leave Supernatural VR Fitness Users Without Updates
- How I Learned Programming: Hands-On Practice, Community, and Curiosity