We don't need a Tech Lead • Hacker News Board

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#31

Post by zaphar » Fri, Dec 02, 2016, 2:48 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #16

zaphar wrote: post #2

I don't know that I fully agree with this. I think in even well functioning teams you need at least one person who is empowered to make the call. In the cases of a disagreement deadlock you need someone to break the deadlock. Whether that person is a called a Tech Lead or something else you still need them and they need authority and freedom to make the call. Maybe his Mediator can be that person but if you give the…

A well functioning team makes all decisions by consensus, so there are no deadlocks. There are certainly disagreements, but they are hashed out in a timely fashion in well functioning teams. That doesn't mean necessarily that everybody completely agrees with everything, but it does mean that members recognize when to defer rather than stall. If you have deadlocks, it's not a well functioning team.

By your definition no team is well-functioning all the time. There will always be a point where there is a deadlock. And if no one on the team has been empowered by the organization to break that deadlock then it will fall to some one who is not familiar with the problem and lacks context. This is fundamental to working on a team and it is why almost universally every team in any context has a "leader".

While it's true that for the most part a well functioning team will hash them out without a Tech Lead having to break a deadlock. It's also true that a deadlock is nearly inevitable at some time in the teams future.

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#32

Post by titzer » Fri, Dec 02, 2016, 2:49 PM UTC

I work in a largish (~30) geographically distributed team, itself nested in a much larger product structure. At our scale, we simply cannot function without hierarchy. We have techleads, a program manager, a technical program manager, and other managers. We had to organize ourself into a handful of smaller teams (3-5) that each have tech lead and manager roles, sometimes the same person, but not always.

FTA: > - When there are newcomers, we need a strong coach.

This tech onboarding doesn't have to be done by the tech lead necessarily. It's done by a mentor who works closest to the newcomer's starter project. The rest they absorb by osmosis and (shock) documentation.

> - When there are architectural challenges, we need an experienced architect.

This is the correct role of a techlead.

> - When there are internal conflicts, we need a mediator.

This is the role of a manager.

> - When there are external blockers or lack of resources, we need a concierge.

This is the role of a manager.

> - When we need to negotiate and integrate with other teams, we need a ambassador.

This is a project manager or general manager role. Tech leads are involved but may not be the primary drivers.

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#33

Post by titzer » Fri, Dec 02, 2016, 2:51 PM UTC

titzer wrote: post #27

The conclusion doesn't agree with the title. FTA: > So, do we really need a tech lead? - Maybe yes when the conditions are not ideal.

I'd even go further to say that yes, you absolutely need a techlead when working on a project that requires a certain domain expertise or the project in question needs to have a coherent technical vision. Otherwise even skilled and well-intentioned teams can pull in different directions and/or build something that is internally incoherent and fragile.

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#34

Post by jcadam » Fri, Dec 02, 2016, 2:53 PM UTC

Most companies (and/or government agencies) in the real world aren't willing to pay for top-quality developers. Hopefully you can get lucky and end up with one strong software engineer on a team otherwise filled with marginally competent code monkeys. In those cases you absolutely want to place the top developer in charge (until he/she gets recruited away, that is), though if you have a strong dues-paying culture it may be difficult to replace an entrenched, useless senior engineer with someone better.

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#35

Post by titzer » Fri, Dec 02, 2016, 2:54 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #16

zaphar wrote: post #2

I don't know that I fully agree with this. I think in even well functioning teams you need at least one person who is empowered to make the call. In the cases of a disagreement deadlock you need someone to break the deadlock. Whether that person is a called a Tech Lead or something else you still need them and they need authority and freedom to make the call. Maybe his Mediator can be that person but if you give the…

A well functioning team makes all decisions by consensus, so there are no deadlocks. There are certainly disagreements, but they are hashed out in a timely fashion in well functioning teams. That doesn't mean necessarily that everybody completely agrees with everything, but it does mean that members recognize when to defer rather than stall. If you have deadlocks, it's not a well functioning team.

Of the systems I have worked on, I cannot imagine any of them working well having been designed by consensus, no matter how skilled the team members. A techlead role is that of an architect; come up with the overall design to make it logical, consistent, coherent. You definitely wouldn't want a programming language that was designed by a committee, or would you?

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#36

Post by douche » Fri, Dec 02, 2016, 2:54 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #16

zaphar wrote: post #2

I don't know that I fully agree with this. I think in even well functioning teams you need at least one person who is empowered to make the call. In the cases of a disagreement deadlock you need someone to break the deadlock. Whether that person is a called a Tech Lead or something else you still need them and they need authority and freedom to make the call. Maybe his Mediator can be that person but if you give the…

A well functioning team makes all decisions by consensus, so there are no deadlocks. There are certainly disagreements, but they are hashed out in a timely fashion in well functioning teams. That doesn't mean necessarily that everybody completely agrees with everything, but it does mean that members recognize when to defer rather than stall. If you have deadlocks, it's not a well functioning team.

If all decisions have to be made by consensus, you're probably not making optimal decisions.

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#37

Post by douche » Fri, Dec 02, 2016, 2:57 PM UTC

mnsc wrote: post #13

tomca32 wrote: post #3

In the teams without a tech lead that I have seen, people just defer to the most senior/confident developer in the team to resolve deadlocks and decide between some tougher choices. That person essentially becomes a tech lead without a title. Edit: I agree with the child comments. It makes things easier, less prone to miscommunication, and efficient to have an actual tech lead in the team.

Senior does not automatically imply confident. I'm most senior in my team but in certain areas I have to admit I'm not confident enough to make a sane choice. If a junior developer that is confident in a solution can't be able to lead in that decision, the team is dysfunctional as stated in the article.

Confidence also doesn't necessarily imply competence. Who hasn't been confident in some solution, which turned out to be a terrible idea due to factors that we did not account for that were beyond our knowledge and experience?

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#38

Post by zaphar » Fri, Dec 02, 2016, 2:57 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #24

voidpointer wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One doesn't become a leader by just being called the lead. Some people have personal traits that make them assume a leader role more often then others. In my experience, a team that is constantly looking for one person to call all the shots isn't very much empowered. If everyone can take responsibility to own up for the calls to make, you end up with a far more engaged team. It requires a certain maturity but a motiv…

"In the cases of a disagreement deadlock you need someone to break the deadlock." != "a team that is constantly looking for one person to call all the shots".

A good tech lead actively works to minimize occasions to exercise his role as deadlock breaker. But you can't eliminate that need. If you do then the first time you have a deadlock will be a disaster and you may find that a well functioning team has now turned in a massively dysfunctional one.

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#39

Post by zaphar » Fri, Dec 02, 2016, 3:00 PM UTC

mnsc wrote: post #9

zaphar wrote: post #2

I don't know that I fully agree with this. I think in even well functioning teams you need at least one person who is empowered to make the call. In the cases of a disagreement deadlock you need someone to break the deadlock. Whether that person is a called a Tech Lead or something else you still need them and they need authority and freedom to make the call. Maybe his Mediator can be that person but if you give the…

For me the person taking the mediator role doesn't need to have "enough practical experience". The role of mediator could be someone not invested in on side of the deadlock that takes it upon them to lay out the pros and cons so that the people assuming the architect role discuss from the same premises. A mediator could also identify if there are outside demands that are uncertain that causes the deadlock. Then someo…

The risk you take on when the mediator role doesn't have practical experience is that no consensus will be reached. Or worse if that mediator is empowered to break a deadlock he'll do so badly because he doesn't have enough context to make a good decision and not enough time to come up to speed in order to make a good decision.

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#40

Post by codingdave » Fri, Dec 02, 2016, 3:00 PM UTC

I've found that tech leads grow organically as a team grows. The go-to guy who knows the products and the tech, and to whom everyone go with questions, if they also have leadership skills and like to help other, ends up falling into that role almost by accident. Whether it becomes formalized or not depends on the organization. I don't think you need to inject a tech lead role onto a team that hasn't already informally started using one.