Game development is a complex and intricate process, and while technology like AI promises to revolutionize it, there's a glaring issue that often goes unaddressed: poor leadership. Yes, you heard that right—the very people steering the ship can sometimes be the ones slowing it down. But here's where it gets controversial: is it a matter of individual incompetence, or are there deeper structural issues at play? Let’s dive in.
In September, we explored why game development cycles have stretched longer over the past decade. Surprisingly, many readers asked, 'Why didn’t you mention bad leadership?' Fair point. Mea culpa. The truth is, it’s a tricky topic. What’s considered 'bad leadership' in one studio might be the norm in another. To shed light on this, we spoke with six industry veterans who shared eye-opening stories—some under anonymity—about how poor leadership has derailed high-profile projects.
Their experiences reveal a harsh reality: you can have the most advanced tools, but if your leadership is dysfunctional, progress will stall. Think of it like building a racecar. Even with the best technology, if the team owner keeps shuffling mechanics and drivers, the car will never reach its full potential.
And this is the part most people miss: poor leadership isn’t just about being a 'bad boss.' It’s about systemic behaviors that grind development to a halt. We’ve identified seven key traits of such leaders, backed by real-world examples. These aren’t just minor annoyances—they’re roadblocks that can doom a project.
The Seven Sins of Poor Leadership in Game Development
Failing to Understand Game Development Realities
See AlsoUK Government Debates Video Game Consumer Laws in Light of Concord ShutdownArc Raiders 2025 Roadmap: New Maps, Machines & Events for PS5 MultiplayerMortal Kombat Legacy Kollection: A Nostalgic Journey through the AgesNeon Doctrine's Future: Merging with Raw Fury and Leadership Changes- Approving and then discarding content: Imagine spending months on a feature only to have it scrapped because a lead got bored of it. Sounds absurd? It happens more often than you’d think.
- Demanding features without direction: Leaders often request features without understanding how they’ll be implemented, leaving developers scrambling.
- Requiring polished material too early: Asking for high-quality assets in the early stages can waste time and resources, as these often need to be redone later.
- Poor project management: Unrealistic timelines and ignoring departmental dependencies can leave teams either overwhelmed or underutilized.
Failure to Trust Employees
- Over-reliance on sign-offs: When every decision needs approval from multiple leads, progress grinds to a halt.
- Ignoring employee input: Dismissing warnings from QA teams or developers about critical issues can lead to costly mistakes later.
- Retaliation against whistleblowers: Laying off or punishing employees who speak up creates a culture of fear and stifles innovation.
Treating Developers as Interchangeable
- Expecting genre expertise overnight: Shifting developers to unfamiliar genres without proper training is a recipe for disaster.
- Ignoring institutional knowledge: When key team members leave, their expertise goes with them, often leaving a void that’s hard to fill.
- Assuming easy replacements: Thinking anyone can step into a role without understanding the nuances of the work is a common leadership blind spot.
Slow Decision-Making
- Endless approval processes: When decisions require consensus from too many leads, projects stall.
- Hyper-focus on minor details: Leaders obsessing over small aspects while ignoring bigger picture issues can delay entire teams.
- Unfathomable delays: Decisions taking weeks or months for no clear reason are a major bottleneck.
Providing Vague or Useless Feedback
- Unclear critiques: Feedback like 'make it cooler' offers no direction and frustrates developers.
- Lack of constructive input: Publishers or leads rejecting work without explanation leaves teams guessing.
Demanding Sudden Changes
- The 'weekend inspiration' phenomenon: A lead plays a popular game over the weekend and suddenly wants to overhaul features, disrupting workflows.
- Narrative pivots: Late-stage changes to the story can ripple across departments, causing chaos.
Vague Crunch Policies
- Unacknowledged overtime: Promising 'no crunch' but setting deadlines that require it creates resentment and burnout.
- Hourly caps leading to unpaid work: Limiting hours for hourly workers while expecting results forces them to work off the clock.
Real-World Consequences
Take the example of 3D rigger Sol Brennan, who witnessed leads skipping crucial steps like 'grey-boxing' in level design, only to redo work later. Or the anonymous designer who described 'circular iteration,' where final content closely resembled discarded versions, wasting months of effort.
Producer Masao Kobayashi highlighted how leaders often demand 'fancy concept art' just to visualize ideas, which is later discarded. This not only wastes time but also diverts resources from the actual game.
The Structural vs. Individual Debate
Here’s where it gets thought-provoking: is poor leadership a structural issue or an individual one? Writer Robert Caro’s quote, 'Power reveals,' suggests that leadership isn’t just about actions but the nature of the authority itself. Structural reforms are needed, but what happens when toxic leaders slip through the cracks, protected by their connections?
Bold question: Can the game industry truly evolve if it doesn’t address the root causes of poor leadership? AI can’t fix this. The solution lies in listening to the people on the ground—the developers who know what works and what doesn’t.
So, what do you think? Is poor leadership a symptom of deeper industry issues, or is it simply a matter of replacing bad leaders? Let’s spark a conversation in the comments—your insights could shape the future of game development.
