This is more of a reflection based on my experience across multiple projects and products that I have been part of as a consultant.
The illusion of efficiency
There is a common assumption in software development that faster development means better efficiency. It sounds reasonable, and in the middle of delivery it even feels correct — tickets are moving, pull requests are getting merged, and there is visible progress every day. But speed of development is not efficiency.
It is only movement, and a faster movement in the wrong direction compounds faster than anything else.
Finish-Fast syndrome
I coined that term myself, but I am sure it is not new. The urge to finish fast is a developer’s worst enemy. It is the one thing that can turn a good developer into a bad one, and it is the one thing that can turn a good project into a failed one.
We all have it, in some form: the urge to finish things quickly. We might either be competing with our colleagues in terms of delivery efficiency, or being insecure about your own job and worrying what others might think if we take longer for a task, or simply being under pressure to meet deadlines imposed by someone else. In all cases, the instinct is the same — push harder, deliver more. But that instinct is exactly where things start going wrong.
Yes hot-fixes and rushed deliveries are justified with: “we have to meet the deadline”. I would call this a separate issue- it’s not what this piece is about. The real problem discussed here is self-imposed urgency: rushing for flimsy reasons, speeding to look good, speeding to exhibit velocity, chasing speed for its own sake, and calling it discipline. It isn’t discipline. It’s pressure you chose to believe in.
The chain reaction nobody plans for
Most teams unknowingly optimise for higher-level completeness while ignoring foundational correctness. If we break it down into levels — L1 being basic functionality, L2 intermediate behaviour, and L3 more complex flows — what often happens is that L3 gets implemented and demonstrated, L2 mostly behaves as expected, but L1 is not reliably correct across all scenarios.
The focus is on getting things working, not necessarily getting them working correctly from all angles. It shows up during UAT, usually in the form of “basic things are not working”. It’s even worse when your teammate finds a bug in basic functionality. We are not talking about edge cases yet, but just the basic stuff!
At that point, fixing L1 is no longer a small change. L1 carries assumptions that L2 and L3 are built upon. So when L1 is corrected, it breaks parts of L2. Fixing L2 then cascades into L3.
Meanwhile, UAT is waiting, deadlines remain unchanged, and pressure increases. In many cases, the pressure is not even from leadership initially, but from UAT, because delays on development directly reduce their testing window.
So why are we really speeding?
If the reason is too many features, question them. If the reason is scope of features, re-evaluate and reduce them. If the reason is critical bug fix, learn the art of the hotfix, then run a post-mortem.
If you don't do any of these, then of course your only solution is to speed up development. Look how much you had to ignore to get to this conclusion!
Should the Fastest Developer Be Celebrated or Watched with Caution ?
It is the team lead’s responsibility neither to underestimate real slowness nor to overestimate raw speed.
My answer to whether a fast developer should be celebrated or not is — celebrate, but be cautious. This is a very nuanced topic.
The developer who quietly writes reliable, low-defect code often goes unnoticed, while those who create problems and resolve them quickly are celebrated — seen as indispensable to the team.
In fact, this inspired me to write this blog, and I hope it resonates with many of you.
So is speed good for startups and bad for big companies?
If you want me to give a simple answer, I would say “right speed” is good for both, and “wrong speed” is bad for both. Let me demystify what I mean by “right speed” and “wrong speed”.
Speed may kill a startup
The danger of uncontrolled speed is actually more pronounced in startups than in big firms. Yes, it is counterintuitive. In a startup environment, if there is no control over your speed, it often ends up skipping necessary thought processes that are crucial for the product’s success.
Speed allows developers to bypass questions such as: How simple is it for users to use the most basic feature of the product?, Is this feature really necessary?,
Should our product depend on this other firm which is dying? etc. Those hard questions are easy to skip in startups in the excitement of getting some toy use case working.
On the other side of the fence, controlled speed often has the trait of cautiousness, and that gives any product more edge. If not cautious, you end up with a product that is not really usable, and that is the worst thing for a startup.
What about planning? Well, if we are planning for speed, we are not really planning for the right things. In fact, most often we end up breaking the “first impression is the last impression” rule, and we are not going to get a second chance.
How many experimental users come back after hitting complexity first? Almost none. First impressions don’t educate — they filter. If your product feels complex at the door, users don’t explore… they leave.
Speed may kill your reputation in big firms
In larger environments — successful startups or big companies — speed stops being the differentiator. Reputation does. And that reputation is built on quality, reliability, and fault tolerance. Speed comes after.
Why? Because everything is validated immediately — within the team (UAT, reviews), and then by users. There’s nowhere to hide.
Deadlines still exist. But you’re not expected to move faster than necessary. A good team lead defines the right pace, not the fastest one. That’s the shift: it’s not about speed, it’s about doing the right thing within the given time.
It may feel slower, but it isn’t. It’s controlled speed — the kind that produces work others can rely on. And that’s what compounds. If people trust your work, they build on it. If they don’t, they work around it.
One accelerates the team. The other quietly slows everything down.
Speed - A visible symptom
Speed doesn’t win. Sloppy speed loses.
It feels good. It looks impressive. It gets applause — while quietly eroding your foundation. The faster you move without depth, the more you gamble with hidden failures.
Speed isn’t strength. It’s compensation.
It cuts both ways — building momentum or amplifying mistakes.
🔥 Speed is the perfect double-edged sword. 🔥 And a visible symptom of deeper problems.