[danpalmer]

At the SVP level, sure, but at the IC level, I doubt any accountant gets promoted for saying "looks fine", whereas highlighting details that superiors can use to make a decision like this might be something that gets you promoted.

This is a misunderstanding I think many non-googlers have, thinking people only get promoted for launches (or in this case acquisitions). It's more nuanced than that: people get promoted for impact and while launches are one obvious form, you can sell pretty much anything useful as impact if you can show how it's useful. In the case of M&A, avoiding a bad acquisition, if you can justify it, would be impact.

[0cf8612b2e1e]

If only that were the case. I can think of many instances where someone pushing for a bad deal/acquisition/product were rewarded for the visible outcome. Killing a bad idea is incredibly valuable, but I am struggling to think of an instance where that was used to justify kudos. Especially if you are the one who torpedoes a big wigs initiative.

[xmprt]

I think the argument is that it's much easier to show impact when you go with the flow and launch a product or complete an acquisition no matter how shitty. It's a lot harder to get promoted for saying that you need to delay launch by 6 months because of some metrics or details even if that would eventually prove to be the right decision.