A technical lead telling upper management that a timeline is unrealistic will land very differently if they frame it in terms of regulatory risk, potential FDA audit failures, or product liability exposure rather than purely technical constraints, because those are the consequences that resonate at the management level. This connects to what dmf2 mentioned about attacking the problem rather than each other, since reframing the conversation around shared consequences naturally depersonalizes the conflict. In a power-imbalanced situation, the lower-power party also has to be strategic about timing, raising concerns early and incrementally, rather than waiting until a deadline is imminent, gives management room to adjust without feeling blindsided or publicly undermined. As mmk68 pointed out, finding an advocate who sits closer to management's level is also an underrated move, since the same concern carries more organizational weight depending on who delivers it. I'd also add that documenting your technical reasoning in writing before any verbal compromise is reached protects everyone involved, if a rushed timeline later causes a failure, there's a paper trail showing the risk was flagged, which matters enormously in a regulated industry. Ultimately, the most durable compromises in this type of power imbalance aren't won in a single meeting but built gradually through consistent credibility and data-backed communication over time.