The article would not be so controversial if it weren't outright saying "fake deadline". Of course you need a plan and a push, and stakeholders legitimately need (if only emotionally) some idea of when the builders will deliver. But on a charitable reading there are already terms for what it describes -- expected, target, soft date etc.

In my first engineering job out of college I was manipulated into working (on prem) into the early morning night, after I'd been there a few years. I couldn't help but think of that when I read

> If you think that a prototype might take a month, why not challenge the team to see what they can deliver by the end of the week? You will be surprised, and so will they.

Just being a kid and having my boss, a former professor I looked up to, expect that I could pull it off was enough. You have to be really careful "challenging" engineering reports like this -- need to actually use "see what you can do" language, NOT "deadline" (even if fake) for a 1mo->1wk timeline compression. He certainly acted surprised when I quit sometime thereafter. Hopefully he learned from the experience as well, I still appreciate my time there, just needed more experienced / realistic management.