Balancing Technical Excellence with Business Needs

How can I convince my leadership to prioritize Quality over Quantity? 👇🏼 I love this question that came in from Sreejin, one of my Level Up Software Engineering newsletter readers. Many of us can relate to feeling like feature work always gets prioritized over “clean code” or “addressing tech debt.” Here are two approaches I’ve seen and tried that don’t work ❌ Approach 1️⃣: “There’s a lot of tech debt in this area, it’s really bad.” Outcome: ❌ “Ok... unfortunately we don’t have time right now to work on that, we’ve got this big product launch we’ve got to focus on.” Approach 2️⃣: “We have a ton of tech debt in this codebase, we should tackle it soon. I filed these 5 tickets. Can you add them to an upcoming sprint?” Outcome: “Hey thanks for mentioning, we are super busy now… let’s try to fit it in near the end of this year when we are less busy.” Here’s a better approach I’ve seen that works ✅ Approach 3️⃣: “Hey, we’ve had 3 incidents in this area of our system. It’s actually causing one of our customers to be labeled as a churn risk. I’ve outlined several high-impact fixes in these 4 tickets that would give us the reliability and performance we need. We could knock it out in one dedicated sprint if we all rallied together on it. I know that would delay our Project X/Y/Z priority, but we should be able to still deliver it by the end of Q4 by cutting some scope here and here.” Outcome: ✅ “Wow, thanks for connecting the dots on all three incidents. I can see this needs to be a high priority. Next sprint is already filled, but let’s work together with our PM to refine this work and get it into the sprint after next!” The difference is developing your product/user/business sense. 🧠 You are connecting “quality” to real business value and impact, rather than just “clean code” or “tech debt” – which some leaders just hear as: “it works but it’s not the prettiest.” - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - What approaches have you used to advocate for quality? I’d love to hear from you in the comments. 🙋♀️🙋♂️ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P.S. If you liked this post, you’ll probably love my weekly newsletter: https://lnkd.in/e8d5ymr3 

You’re an engineering leader, a staff+ engineer, or a product owner who sees the cost of technical debt every day. But when you try to advocate for time to fix it, execs either nod vaguely or change the subject. You’re not wrong—you’re just not being heard. Here’s why that happens: When you say "tech debt," they hear "not urgent." When you say "refactor," they hear "money pit." When you say "architecture," they hear "someone else’s problem." But the reality is: Tech debt slows down your ability to ship new features. It increases the risk of outages or missed SLAs. It silently drives away your best engineers. So how do you make them care? I coach engineering and product leaders on how to frame technical priorities in business language—so they get the time, resources, and executive backing they need. Here’s the approach: Tie tech debt to business risk or cost: "This feature now takes 3x longer to ship because of X." Use executive language: Talk time-to-market, reliability, developer retention—not code quality. Frame it as an investment: "Fixing this sets us up for velocity in Q3." Make tradeoffs visible: "If we don’t fix this now, we’ll miss Y opportunity." Track real pain: Show data on cycle time, error rates, or turnover. Don’t wait for permission. If your leadership still sees tech debt as an engineering problem, it’s time to change the story you’re telling. This is where I come in. I help technical leaders communicate with power—bridging the gap between strategy and systems. Whether through coaching or fractional partnership, let’s get your org moving faster and smarter. #technicalleadership #engineeringmanagement #productstrategy #executivecommunication #startupgrowth

Business value vs. platform health? It’s not either-or. It’s a portfolio strategy. Over the years, I’ve seen companies take on massive multi-year re-platforming efforts. These usually succeed in launching a shiny new platform...But at what cost? 1️⃣ The business is often set back significantly during the transition. 2️⃣ The new platform rarely delivers the features the business actually needed when the effort was launched - requirements were lost in translation, subject matter experts left and knowledge lost, context was missing. 3️⃣ Worse, the team stopped learning. No customer feedback for years, no iteration, and by the time the platform is done, the market has changed. On the flip side, I’ve also seen what happens when platform health is ignored: Customer satisfaction is impacted with more disruptions and incidents. Tech debt grows while the work slows down. Less productivity from engineering and product teams. Morale dips. Velocity drops. Less experimentation. Growth stalls as competitors move faster and better. That’s why I approach this challenge like a portfolio. 📊 Most of the investment should go toward delivering business value. That should NEVER stop. 🔧 But 20–30% must be consistently allocated to platform modernization, platform health, engineering excellence, and reducing technical debt with consistent incremental delivery Neglecting that part of the portfolio doesn’t just build up future risk — it quietly erodes your ability to move fast and deliver impact. It's not a tug-of-war between tech and business. It’s about investing wisely in both — today and for the long run.