TL;DR
Senior engineers sometimes decline to intervene in projects they judge to be misguided because raising objections consumes limited influence and can carry political and reputational costs. They conserve that influence for cases with high proximity, big team impact, or company-wide consequences.
What happened
An essay from a senior engineer reflects on how attitudes change from early-career impulses to call out questionable work toward a more selective approach with experience. The author sketches what they mean by a "bad project": poor UX decisions, unnecessarily complex technical designs, or initiatives driven by internal politics rather than real user needs. Drawing on a personal example at Google, they describe a technically impressive effort that was politically unworkable because it required one team to surrender control of a core user flow to another; the project continued for nearly two years before being quietly pivoted and deleted. The piece argues that companies reward speed and shipping, that repeated public objections can brand an engineer as negative or harm colleagues’ careers, and that chronic intervention can lead to cynicism. The author recommends treating one’s influence as a finite resource and spending it deliberately.
Why it matters
- Intervening too often can erode an engineer’s ability to influence important future decisions.
- Projects that are technically elegant can still fail for political or ownership reasons.
- Conserving influence helps protect teams from downstream fallout when others’ projects affect shared work.
- Understanding trade-offs between being right and being effective affects career longevity and team relationships.
Key facts
- The author defines “bad projects” across UX, technical, and political dimensions.
- A cited internal example involved a platform team asking a flagship product team to give up control of a core user flow, making the project politically unfeasible.
- Large companies have a bias for action; concerns that slow progress are often resisted unless they clear a high threshold.
- Repeatedly raising objections risks being labeled a negative force and yields little visible credit when problems are averted.
- The essay uses a financial metaphor for influence: small daily interventions are like $5 checks, medium architectural challenges like $500 checks, and trying to stop an executive-backed project like a $50,000 check.
- If an engineer overdraws their influence, they can suffer “political bankruptcy”: exclusion from meetings and diminished impact.
- Three factors the author uses to decide when to speak up are proximity to the project, potential impact on their team, and the project’s company-wide blast radius.
- The author emphasizes humility about one’s expertise and treating objections as opinions, not decrees.
What to watch next
- Projects that require another team to surrender control of core user flows or ownership — a sign of political risk.
- Requests or initiatives that directly affect your team’s work or could create obligations for you if they fail.
- Your own track record of interventions: frequent small objections may deplete your influence when larger issues arise.
Quick glossary
- Bad project: A project considered likely to fail or cause harm due to poor user experience choices, unsuitable technical design, or problematic political motivations.
- Bias for action: A cultural tendency in organizations to prioritize speed and shipping over prolonged deliberation.
- Influence bank account: A metaphor treating an engineer’s social capital and credibility as a limited resource to be spent selectively.
- Political bankruptcy: A state in which a person has depleted their capacity to influence decisions due to repeated opposition or burned relationships.
Reader FAQ
Should senior engineers always speak up when they see a bad project?
No. The essay argues for selective intervention based on proximity, team impact, and company-wide risk.
How does the author recommend deciding when to intervene?
Assess whether the project is close to your team, how much it would affect your work if it fails, and the potential company-wide consequences.
What are the risks of calling out many projects?
Repeated objections can brand you as negative, harm colleagues’ chances, deplete your influence, and lead to exclusion from future discussions.
Is technical merit always enough to save a project?
No. The author gives an example where technical elegance failed because the political and ownership dynamics made success unlikely.
How often should you spend large amounts of influence?
not confirmed in the source
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
- Meta Layoffs Leave Supernatural VR Fitness Users Without Updates
- South Korea Denies xAI’s Request for Kakao Documents in Apple Lawsuit
- AI labs see accelerating churn as staff jump between leading companies