When Leaders Cut What They Can't See (And Pay for It Later)

A new leader walks in, spots a buddy system with no deliverables and no metrics, and thinks… I never had this. I figured it out on my own. So they cut it. And in the short term, that feels completely reasonable.

My hypothesis is that the problem here isn't the decision itself… it's *what the decision was based on*. Six months later, ramp-up time is longer and no one can trace it back to that moment. The program was doing something real… giving new hires a reliable first person to ask the small questions to, instead of stumbling in front of their manager or losing an entire week to guessing. None of that shows up on a first pass. None of that fits neatly into a metric. And so it looked like nothing.

It kept feeling more and more obvious to me that this pattern shows up everywhere in engineering management and technology leadership… anytime a leader evaluates an inherited system by whether it matches their own mental model. The experience that got them hired is genuinely valuable (I'm not arguing against pattern matching… it's *earned*). But pattern matching is supposed to *speed up* the questions you ask, not replace them. There's a real difference between a leader who uses instinct to know what to look for and one who lets instinct decide before they've done the work to understand what they're actually looking at.

0:00 The buddy system scenario

0:27 Why it felt like the right call

0:37 What the program was actually doing

0:53 The real pattern — inherited systems and mental models

1:05 Where pattern matching goes wrong

SUBSCRIBE for more insights on leadership, product, and technology

Newsletter: https://www.nathanbroslawsky.com

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/broslawsky

#leadership #management #engineering #productmanagement #technology #transformation