Would it? I mean, the people you're throwing under the bus would hate you, but the top of the company should love because a) you saved them a ton of money, and b) you identified a pile of incompetence in their company.

And who's going to fire you for this?

The people telling you to roll this out slowly are doing so mostly to protect themselves from having their incompetence exposed and to appear useful. Protecting them will help them steal your credit and will get them promoted.

It would, I replied to someone else below to explain why. But in general, it's best for your future career to be remembered well.

That sounds like a very nice and theatrical outcome, but in reality nobody wants to believe they've been horribly wrong about their understanding of things, which means the higher-ups are going to be talking directly to the managers to get their side and figure out how they can show you've misrepresented the situation. They're not going to fire managers en masse because the new guy said "Everyone here is dumb and cowardly," even with evidence.

this assumes that the "top of the company" is a shining tower of competence, blissfully unaware of how incompetent the people below them are.

more likely, the top of the company is just as incompetent but has lucked / gamed their way into promotions anyways.

So this engineer throwing his managers under the bus may be good for the company in theory, but to the senior management this is a red flag. they don't want engineers who do this - they want engineers who give credit to their managers. if they promoted this engineer and fired everyone else, he'd come for them next.

I would assume that the top of the company cares about money, that saving money is a good thing, and that hiring incompetent people is a bad thing.

Of course if everybody quietly agrees that this company is a suitable vehicle for their incompetence, then it's a bad idea to address this. And some companies definitely are.

This is a deep misunderstanding of human psychology.

> the top of the company should love because a) you saved them a ton of money

The top of the company is probably already rich. Being richer is great, but one of the few things rich people generally won't burn to run the money-making engine hotter is their own sense of prestige and entitlement.

> b) you identified a pile of incompetence in their company.

Yes, and you told that fact to people who were already responsible for identifying that, which means you just told them that they are incompetent too. And that transitively works its way all the way up the org chart.

You would make the whole chain of command lose face and do so in front of the rest of the chain of command. It would be career suicide.

Every manager would rather silently waste money than be made to look like a fool. Because the money comes out of the business's bank account, not theirs, but looking stupid affects their personal reputation.

As the common quotation goes, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

It really depends on your priorities and operating environment, but there are many people who would be leaving anyways if they save the company that much money and were given exactly zero reward, and at that point plenty of people would be happy to burn bridges on the way out. Like I said, it really depends on the environment and your priories.

Tech is a small circle. Unless it's something obviously wrong, you may want to be at least milder :)

The thing about burning bridges is you don't know when you'll need them.

Let's say 5 or 10 years later you're applying to a job where one of these upper-level people now work. How do you want them to remember you? The know-it-all who wasn't a team player and kind of an asshole? Or the engineer who gets things done and has demonstrably shown to land impact and value, an engineer the exec would consider lucky to have?

Some of you will say you wouldn't want to work for one of these executives again. But people change, incentives change, the environment changes. Have you ever made a technical decision you later regretted?

And maybe you don't work for them. Maybe you're applying to a different company where someone knows these previous upper-level management folks and they ask about you. How do you want that recommendation to come across? "That engineer was an asshole.", "That engineer was amazing, I wish we could have kept them. We made a big mistake by not trying to keep them.".

You are -mostly- right but there is also the factor where a specific sort of negative reaction can actually function as a recommendation later.

I've definitely missed out on work sometimes due to having a reputation for being about as subtle as a brick to the face with no lemon, but I've also -got- certain pieces of work as a direct result of being criticised and somebody who heard the criticism thinking "if he annoyed that person that way, he's probably serious about doing the right thing."

I would, however, suggest that probably I would've done better overall if I'd toned it down a bit.