This is false. See Chapter 4 of Peopleware. There is not actually a trade-off between quality and speed of delivery, especially not when you look medium- or lon

This is false. See Chapter 4 of Peopleware. There is not actually a trade-off between quality and speed of delivery, especially not when you look medium- or long-term, but also not even in short-term. When you incentivize people to solve a problem in a high-quality way, they tend to also solve it faster and with fewer defects than when they are told to prioritize speed. Also, none of this is nearly as binary as your comment makes it seem to be. Yes, you might lose a little in the short-term to a faster, but more error-prone, competitor. But as long as the loss isn't so severe that you become insolvent, then you might live to see the day when all of the competitor's errors and sloppy work come home to roost and they fail spectacularly. In general, doing it wrong but fast is pretty worthless, investors and customers will catch on to you and bail, and only the highest level of management will have insulated themselves from the losses that result. Working for a steadier company that prioritizes building a name based upon actual quality, and is willing to tell customers or investors no when they must do so, to regulate feature creep, ensure high quality standards and accuracy, and so forth, is not only much more rewarding, but also more likely to lead to stable income. I think the type of binary, winner-must-take-all-as-soon-as-possible thinking is very destructive. It's not a useful mental model of how this stuff actually works, but because so many managers believe that it is, they engage in all kinds of unnecessary and self-destructive anti-quality patterns, and they end up damaging everyone in a tragedy of the commons sort of way.