Senior engineers often stay silent on bad projects to protect influence; the article shows how to treat influence like a bank account, pick battles wisely, and decide when to intervene for maximum impact.
Being right and being effective are not the same thing for senior engineers. The piece argues that seniority brings the temptation to constantly flag "bad projects," but doing so erodes the very influence needed to make a difference when it truly matters. Instead, influence should be treated as a finite resource that can be spent strategically.
The author introduces the "influence bank account" metaphor: daily nitpicks are cheap $5 checks, architectural push-backs are $500 checks, and trying to kill a VP's pet project is a $50,000 check. Spending small checks too often drains the balance, leaving you bankrupt when a genuine disaster looms. Overdrawn influence leads to political isolation and reduced ability to get work done.
Three practical filters decide when to withdraw: how close the project is to your team, the potential impact on your team if it fails, and the scale of the problem for the company. Proximity lowers the cost of speaking up; high team impact raises the payoff; and a large blast radius justifies larger withdrawals.
The article then maps those filters to concrete actions. A nuclear option involves escalation and direct shutdown. A softer route is a strongly worded concern or a design doc review that nudges the team toward a better solution. When the cost outweighs the benefit, the advice is to quietly adjust dependencies, extract the useful core idea, or simply stay out and vent privately. This strategic approach lets senior engineers protect their credibility while still shaping outcomes where it matters.
Check out the full stdlib collection for more frameworks, templates, and guides to accelerate your technical leadership journey.