Many software teams aim for perfect technical decisions. Often, this leads to a “decision by a few” routine, where only one or two senior engineers make most technical choices. At first glance, it seems efficient: fewer discussions, faster approvals, consistent approaches. But this routine comes with hidden costs.

The downside of a “decision by a few” routine:

• Team members disengage because their input is ignored or undervalued.
• Innovation slows as fewer perspectives are considered.
• Decisions become brittle, relying on the memory and judgment of just a few people.
• Newer engineers miss the chance to learn through real decisions, slowing growth and succession planning.

A strong, resilient team avoids this trap. It stays active when members at all levels are empowered to participate, experiment, and learn, even if small mistakes happen. The key is to create opportunities that are meaningful and carefully scoped, so people feel their decisions matter. Participation carries small risks, but the payoff is high.

Well-structured examples of low-cost opportunities and their real benefits

For junior developers, Example: Let a junior developer design the first version of a small feature with limited impact.

• Worst-case cost: A few extra review cycles or minor refactoring.
• Potential gain: Confidence, deeper understanding of trade-offs, and faster skill growth.

For mid-level engineers, Example: Let a mid-level engineer design the structure and flow of a contained component.

• Worst-case cost: Rework if scalability or clarity falls short.
• Potential gain: Stronger ownership, better architectural thinking, and preparation for larger responsibilities.

For senior developers, Example: Give a senior developer space to propose and test a new pattern or technical approach in a scoped area.

• Worst-case cost: A few days of work may need to be rolled back.
• Potential gain: Discovery of a better pattern, reduction of technical debt, and innovation that benefits the team.

Cross-level team opportunities, Example: Collaboratively refine internal tooling or build processes that are easy to reverse.

• Worst-case cost: Small disruption and temporary rollback.
• Potential gain: Improved workflows, faster builds, and shared ownership of internal systems.

These opportunities only work if tasks feel meaningful. Assigning trivial or symbolic work sends the wrong signal and makes people feel their input doesn’t matter. Leaders must carefully select tasks that are low risk but high in learning and impact.

If participation is encouraged thoughtfully, engineers grow faster, ideas get richer, and decisions improve. If participation is suppressed, even highly skilled team members become passive, slowing innovation and weakening the team.

To sum up, healthy engineering teams are not built by perfect decisions made by a few. They are built by people who feel trusted to learn, experiment, and contribute in meaningful ways. The small costs of participation pay off with stronger individuals, a more motivated team, and better long-term decisions.