Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> By a huge margin, most of the failed project did not fail because the engineering team was weak...

YMMV here. I've seen many projects fail because teams unnecessarily accumulated technical debt of various sorts. I guess you could blame management for not knowing about it or prioritizing correctly or something, but good engineers know that you have to include technical cleanup in the feature estimate or you'll end up like this.

I've also seen many unforced errors that created more technical debt than was worth it (over-complicated from-scratch frameworks, betting on unproven demo-ware, etc.).



I've seen some of those failures but made a different conclusion: None of those teams had the balls to say 'no' any time management got even a little bit upset about anything.

Now, part of that is on the engineers, but the only solution I know of is solidarity. But a lot of it came from systematic abuse from the project managers, wearing them down and then calling them incompetent when they couldn't deliver.

Just like this article says farther down, everybody is good at something. I've only had to talk about firing a handful of people (rather than reassigning) and it was always because they were belligerent to progress, or because of Dunning-Kruger Effect - they would not admit they weren't good at something and keep creating 2x as much work for everybody else who has to clean up after them.

Punishing people because they aren't good at everything is just some sadistic bullshit that makes small men feel important, and a lot of those are attracted to middle management. It's twisted and wrong and only rarely does a company succeed with that kind of corporate culture. And when they do there are always memoirs from the victims.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: