Engineers Should Critique Product Decisions Early

A common, yet frequently overlooked, problem within many tech companies isn’t simply poor communication or unclear processes, it’s that software engineers often face constraints when it comes to challenging or critiquing the decisions of product teams. Unlike product managers (PMs) or executives, engineers have their work intensely scrutinized since their output either functions as intended or it doesn’t. This imbalance creates an environment where critical assumptions made early in the project cycle often go unchecked until they’re too late to correct effectively.

Imbalanced Accountability

Product managers typically spend significant time early in a project cycle engaging customers, conducting brainstorming sessions, or aligning with executives. Unfortunately, these sessions frequently occur without engineering representation. The absence of technical insight at this early stage leads to PMs making critical assumptions about feasibility, scope, and timeline, often inaccurately.

In many companies, this means engineers receive requirements late in the process, when timelines are already set and expectations cemented. This dynamic forces engineers into reactive mode, scrambling to meet unrealistic deadlines rather than proactively shaping the product from the beginning.

A Real-World Example

Several years ago, I personally witnessed a stark example of this dynamic. A CEO openly admitted withholding critical information about a promised feature that was already six months overdue. He rationalized his secrecy, believing transparency would distract the team from existing tasks. Instead, the development team found themselves forced into crisis mode, hurriedly delivering a product feature under significant pressure and reduced trust.

Had the CEO trusted the engineering team enough to involve them early, the expectations could have been managed more effectively, reducing team stress and delivering better outcomes for both the company and its customers.

The Cost of Late Transparency

Hiding key product decisions from engineers is not merely a leadership misstep, it’s a cultural failure. It signals that engineers’ insights into product development are less valued than those of their counterparts, undermining trust and ownership. This environment creates unnecessary stress, friction, and ultimately, subpar products.

Teams function most effectively when trust and transparency permeate all levels of decision-making. Engineers must be encouraged and empowered to critique, challenge, and contribute early in the project lifecycle.

A Balanced Culture

To shift this dynamic and foster more effective teams, companies can:

• Invite engineers into early product discussions to ensure feasibility and scope are properly assessed.
• Promote joint ownership by making product and engineering teams co-responsible for timelines, feasibility, and success.
• Create channels for engineers to challenge assumptions, ask questions, and voice concerns openly, without fear of retribution.

Achieving better outcomes in software development isn’t solely about refining processes or communication channels, it’s fundamentally about reshaping cultural dynamics. When companies prioritize early transparency, shared accountability, and open critique, engineering teams become empowered contributors rather than mere executors. This cultural shift not only leads to better products but also fosters a healthier, more cohesive team environment.