I don't know if this is the case but be careful about shielding management from the consequences of their bad choices at your expense. It all but guarantees it will get worse.
Letting a thing implode that you could prevent is a missed opportunity for advancement and a risk to your career because you will be on a failing team.
The smarter move is to figure out how to fix it for the company while getting visibility for it.
I don't know what your experience is, but mine is the opposite. Nobody ever notices people who put out fires, and it's hard to should "hey guys! There's a fire here that John started, I'm putting it out!" without looking like a jerk for outing John.
If you say "look, the stuff they're doing there is risky, you should <do thing>", and they don't do it, how can they blame you? If they do do it, then mission accomplished, no?
E.g. "the way that team builds software isn't robust enough, you should replace the leader or we'll have an incident", how can you be blamed for the incident when it happens?
You are right. I don't think the only alternative to shielding management from the consequences of their bad choices is letting things implode and going down with the ship.
Wasn't even legal but concerned the scope of the offer. Nuance, but nuance can be important.
Like "rework the service and add minor festures" VS "slightly rework and do major features" - this affected the direction of our offer a lot.
Maybe you should point them to the news stories about that sort of thing blowing up spectacularly in court. Or maybe you could just let them learn that by themselves.
