Business leaders respond to the language of risk and money, not 'clean code' or 'developer happiness.' Rebranding technical debt work as a necessary step to mitigate future business risks is a more effective way to get projects approved and funded.

Treat organizational learning like technical debt. A 'learning backlog' is a dedicated, prioritized list of skills, processes, and knowledge gaps the team needs to address. This transforms continuous improvement from an abstract goal into a planned, trackable activity, ensuring it doesn't get lost in the rush to deliver features.

Wiz's product team, trained at Microsoft, avoids building features that only solve for today's customer but break with tomorrow's enterprise giant. This 'infinite scale' mindset isn't about slowing down; it's about making conscious architectural choices that prevent time-consuming and costly refactoring later on.

To get product management buy-in for technical initiatives like refactoring or scaling, engineering leadership is responsible for translating the work into clear business or customer value. Instead of just stating the technical need, explain how it enables faster feature development or access to a larger customer base.

To get executive buy-in for technical debt work, visually demonstrate how it blocks high-value future features. Present it as a choice: we can do this necessary refactor now, or we forfeit the ability to build the things that will make us money later.

When knowingly incurring tech debt to meet a deadline, trust between product and engineering is key. Don't just hope to fix it later; establish a formal agreement for an 'N+1 fast follow-up' release. This ensures time is explicitly scheduled to address the shortcuts taken.

To prevent engineers from focusing internally on technical purity (e.g., unnecessary refactoring), leaders must consistently frame all work in terms of its value to the customer. Even tech debt should be justified by its external impact, such as improving security or enabling future features.

A product leader should actively manage development by allocating effort into three buckets: future big bets, core foundation (stability/tech debt), and growth/optimization. The resource allocation isn't fixed; it must dynamically shift based on the product's maturity and immediate business goals.

A single roadmap shouldn't just be customer-facing features. It should be treated as a balanced portfolio of engineering health, new customer value, and maintenance. The ideal mix of these investments changes depending on the product's life cycle, from 99% features at launch to a more balanced approach for mature products.