Hey!

Chris here. Welcome to Blueprint—the newsletter to help you build a winning engineering team.

I've spent the last 20+ years watching engineering teams thrive or die based on a handful of critical decisions. Today, I want to share the 7 deadliest sins I've seen consistently destroy engineering organizations.

I've witnessed each one firsthand, often as the person called in to salvage what's left after the damage is done.

Let's dive in 👇

📒 DEEP DIVE

The 7 Deadly Sins That Will Kill Your Engineering Org

Why your engineering team is headed for disaster (and what to do about it)

Most engineering teams don't fail because of technology—they fail because of decisions that seem small at the time but compound catastrophically.

I've seen these patterns repeatedly while rescuing companies from the brink of collapse. So read these carefully and make sure you aren’t one of them.

1. Hiring for cost instead of impact

Let me be crystal clear: cheaper talent ≠ better value.

The fact that so many founders think the opposite is crazy.

When founders see higher hourly rates, they panic. But they're not doing the complete calculation. Let me give you a real example from Surton. 

One of our senior engineers consistently solves in 3 hours what others struggle with for days. He bills at $200/hour.

Sure, that sounds like a lot, especially once you see the cheaper alternatives bill $50/hour. But there's a reason why. They often need 70+ hours to tackle the same problems—if they can solve them at all.

That's $600 versus $3,500 for the same outcome.

I had a client recently make this exact mistake. They couldn't get over the sticker shock of premium talent, so they went with the "affordable" option. Three months later, they called me in panic mode because their entire system was failing, and they couldn't figure out why.

Think of it like surgery. If you need someone operating on your brain, do you want the surgeon with shaky hands who doesn't know which vein is which? Or do you want the best in the field?

With founders, the business is their baby. When things go sideways, they'll pay anything to save it. The irony is they could have avoided the crisis altogether by investing in the right talent from the start.

2. Ignoring technical debt

Your systems need maintenance like your body needs healthy food. Most companies I work with don't understand this concept until they're facing a digital heart attack.

I'm currently working with a company whose systems hadn't been upgraded for 7 years. Seven years! 

When we came in, we found that almost every problem they were experiencing stemmed from the fact that no one had ever taken the time to do the necessary maintenance work.

It's like delaying operating system updates on your computer. You can put it off for a while, but the longer you wait, the bigger the problems mount. 

In a business environment, these aren't just minor inconveniences—they're ticking time bombs. 

Some of these systems might contain security flaws that haven't been patched in years, leaving you vulnerable to attacks that could cripple your entire operation.

Everyone wants to pay for upgrades the second they actually experience a problem. But by then, the damage is already done. 

The healthier approach is consistent maintenance. Yes, it costs money. Yes, healthy food costs more than cheap food. But hospital bills cost more than both. It's simply a question of whether you want to pay a reasonable amount now or an astronomical amount later.

3. Putting non-experts in leadership positions

You need leaders with engineering in their DNA. You cannot effectively manage what you don't deeply understand.

For some reason, companies think they can put non-technical people in charge of highly technical teams. It's as if they believe management skills alone are enough to lead engineers.

Let me be clear: You cannot manage products without managing engineers—and you can't manage engineers if you've never been one.

How are you going to measure output? Lines of code? Tickets closed? These metrics are meaningless without context. You need someone who can look at an engineering team and know—from real experience—if you're getting peak productivity or burning cash.

When I joined my current fractional CTO role, I immediately demonstrated my technical expertise by solving problems on video calls with the team. I’ve never stopped coding, even as I became a founder and leader. That's how I established credibility.

The moment I showed my technical abilities, I instantly gained their respect. They trusted that I understood the work at a fundamental level.

No one would consider putting a janitor in charge of sales. Yet for some reason, companies regularly put non-technical managers in charge of highly technical engineering teams. And 9/10 times the results are disastrous.

4. Over-engineering solutions

When I talk about engineering sins, people are often surprised to hear me include over-engineering. After all, isn't more sophisticated engineering always better?

Absolutely not. Not every problem requires a PhD-level solution. 

I'm currently working with a client where we've been brought in specifically to simplify an overly complex system they built. They went too far in the other direction from neglect—they over-engineered everything to the point that maintenance became a nightmare.

The truth is, both under-engineering and over-engineering stem from the same root problem: failing to match the right talent level to the actual complexity required for the job.

Some projects need your absolute best engineers with deep expertise. Others need solid, competent implementers who can execute established patterns efficiently. The key is knowing which is which and deploying your resources accordingly.

When you over-engineer a solution, you create unnecessary complexity that becomes harder to maintain, harder to onboard new team members to, and more prone to obscure bugs. You also often end up spending way more time and money than necessary.

This is a more nuanced sin than some of the others, but it's just as destructive in the long run. 

5. Hiring offshore talent

Let me start by saying: there are absolutely brilliant engineers all over the world. This isn't about geography, ethnicity, or any other demographic factor. I've found exceptional talent everywhere.

The problem comes from misaligned expectations and cultural norms around work.

Many companies turn to offshore development to save money. The hourly rates look fantastic on paper. But there's a fundamental truth you can't escape: you will eventually pay for quality (see sin #1). 

Either you pay for it upfront with higher rates, or you pay for it later with technical debt, rework, and potentially catastrophic system failures.

There are also very real cultural differences in how work is approached across the globe. Some cultures prioritize holidays and time off more than the American "work all the time" approach. 

Neither is inherently right or wrong, but this misalignment can create serious productivity issues when deadlines are tight.

Here's what I tell clients: If you're minting money using offshore talent, keep going. Don't fix what isn't broken. But keep a very close temperature check on what's happening because problems can sneak up on you. 

6. Ignoring maker vs. manager schedules

Makers and managers operate on completely different schedules with different needs. And when you force maker schedules on managers or vice versa, productivity collapses.

Imagine you're solving a complex engineering problem. You've got the system torn apart—every screw is out, all the pieces are laid out in front of you, and you're deep in concentration trying to understand how everything fits together.

Then someone walks in and says, "Hey, can you jump on a quick call?"

That "quick call" doesn't just cost you the 30 minutes of the meeting. It costs you the hours it will take to get back into that deep focus state where all the pieces were clear in your mind. You've lost your entire mental context, and rebuilding it is expensive.

I worked with a company recently that made this exact mistake. They scheduled their engineers for back-to-back meetings throughout the day, then wondered why coding output was so low. The VP of Engineering actually asked me, "Where's all our code? When are they coding?"

The answer was painfully obvious: they weren't coding because they couldn't. The constant context-switching made deep work impossible.

If you want efficient engineering output, you need to protect large blocks of uninterrupted time for your makers. This means:

• No meetings during focus blocks

• Minimal interruptions

• Buffer time for context switching

Anything less is setting your team up for frustration and failure.

7. Ignoring proper processes

I'm currently helping a company rebuild its entire infrastructure from scratch because their previous technical founder built the entire system with zero tests.

This might sound like a minor issue to non-technical leaders, but it's lethal. Without proper testing, every change becomes a potential disaster. Every new feature risks breaking existing functionality in ways you won't discover until it's too late.

But it’s more than just testing. It's all the fundamental engineering processes that separate professional operations from amateur hour:

• Proper version control practices

• Code reviews before merging

• Continuous integration/continuous deployment

• Documentation standards

• Security protocols

• Quality assurance processes

These aren't just bureaucratic red tape. They're critical safeguards that protect your business from costly mistakes.

I've seen companies where engineers push code directly to production without reviews. I've worked with startups where crucial configuration details lived only in one developer's head. I've helped businesses recover from disasters that happened because they skipped basic security reviews.

The common thread? All of these problems could have been avoided with proper processes.

The most talented, experienced engineers are usually the strongest advocates for good processes. They've seen what happens without them. Junior engineers or non-technical founders are typically the ones who think they can skip these steps to "move faster."

But there's nothing fast about having to rebuild your entire system from scratch because you ignored the fundamentals.

🎙 EPISODE OF THE WEEK

This week on "Build Your Business," Matt and I unpack why "thinking time" is one of the most underrated tools for founder growth.

While everyone's obsessing over productivity hacks and time management, they're missing what actually drives breakthrough ideas: intentional solitude for strategic thinking.

We dive into:

• Why quiet reflection isn't a luxury but a leadership necessity

• How fiction, podcasts, and emerging tech spark new ideas—but only when you slow down to process them

• The power of writing before speaking to bring clarity to your vision

• Practical ways to protect your thinking time, even in the chaos of running a business

Most founders are stuck in operator mode when they should be reclaiming their role as visionary. This episode shows you exactly how to make that shift.

Listen wherever you listen to podcasts: Spotify | Apple Podcasts | YouTube

BEFORE YOU GO…

When your business is on the brink of collapse because nobody understands your complex systems, you'll wish you'd made different choices.

I know because I'm the guy who gets called in to salvage what's left when it's almost too late. 

I've seen the panic in founders' eyes when they realize their technical decisions have put their entire business at risk.

These seven deadly sins are real reasons engineering teams implode. Why promising startups fail, why established businesses suddenly lose their technical edge, and why CTOs get fired.

The good news? They're all avoidable if you know what to watch for.

Engineering isn't just about technology. It's about people, processes, and priorities. Get those right, and the technology will follow.

Talk soon,

Chris.