On February 27, 1902, Australian lieutenants Harry "Breaker" Morant and Peter Handcock faced a firing squad in Pretoria, executed for war crimes during the Second Boer War. Their court-martial became one of history's most controversial military trials—were they scapegoats following orders from above, or were they truly responsible for their actions? The debate still rages over a century later, but one thing is certain: when the reckoning came, "I was just following orders" wasn't enough.
In tech leadership, we rarely face stakes this high, but the principle cuts just as deep. Every architecture decision that prioritizes speed over security, every feature that trades user privacy for engagement metrics, every corner cut to hit a deadline—these choices echo. When I'm reviewing code or setting sprint priorities, I think about ownership. Not the defensive kind where we dodge blame, but the kind where we recognize that our decisions shape outcomes for real people. Morant's tragedy wasn't just about following bad orders; it was about a system that broke down at every level, from battlefield decisions to command accountability.
The lesson for those of us building software and leading teams? Create a culture where people can question directives that feel wrong. Where "this doesn't align with our values" is a career-making statement, not a career-ending one. We're not just shipping features—we're making choices that affect users, team members, and communities. Own those choices deliberately. Because when accountability day comes (and in tech, it always does—through user trust, team retention, or market consequences), "the roadmap told me to" won't be enough.