What do you mean? The quoted text is the exact strategy I always use.

I don't want or need to be told top down what to do, it's better to think for myself and propose that upward. Execs appreciate it because it makes their jobs easier; users get the features they actually want; I get to work on what I think is important.

What am I missing that makes this a bad strategy?

▲

qznc 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think this is the most efficient approach. Decisions should be made at the lowest possible level of the org chart.

However, it has an important assumption: You are sufficiently aware of higher level things. If you have a decent communication culture in your company or if you are around long enough to know someone everywhere, it should be fine though.

▲

wordpad 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If your proposal doesn't align with leadership vision or the product they want to grow...

	▲	orwin 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		In my experience (I make tools for the network and security guys): that's why you don't propose only one thing. We often have one new project every year, we propose multiple ways to go about it, the leadership ask us to explore 2-3 solutions, we come back with data and propose our preferred solution, the leadership say 'ok' (after a very technical two-hour meeting) and propose minor alterations (or sometimes they want to alter our database design to make it 'closer' to the user experience...)
	▲	sd9 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Well you factor that in too? And be willing to change focus if that's the feedback.
	▲	bluGill 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This can still be okay - but you have to be correct in a way that the company values. This of course needs to be without doing something against the rest of the company - either legally or sabotaging some other product are both out. Values is most commonly money, but there are other things the company values at times..

▲

beernet 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

More often than not, things don't turn out too well if engineers decide what to build without tight steering from customers and/or upper management. This is exactly what it sounds like here. Tech for the purpose of tech. I understand this is HN and we have a pro-engineering bias here, at the same time, engineers don't tend to be the greatest strategists.

	▲	sd9 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Customers and management should always be part of the loop. This is reflected in the original quote and my comment. I just think that having to be micromanaged from the top down is completely miserable, is worse for the customer, and is time consuming for execs. It’s not a way to live. You as an engineer should be familiar with users’ needs. I got into this field because I love automating solutions that help users solve their problems. So of course I want to know what they’re doing, and have a good idea of what would improve their lives further.
	▲	6 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	tayo42 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The article was about how he doesn't work on a product team and only builds internal tools for other coworkers and doesn't need all of that overhead