Live data from Hacker News

We don't need a Tech Lead

vvgomes.com

81–90 of 116 posts

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#81

The article pretty much ignores factors external to the development team. In my experience at a larger company, a key role of tech lead is as a central communication point for other teams / disciplines / projects. It becomes infeasible for every person working on a product to have to know exactly who to talk to for every question. Instead with leads, if I have a sw question, an electrical question, a service question…

As a counterpoint to that maybe everyone on the team should know who the expert is in any particular area and EVERY member of the team should have adequate communication skills

This is wishful thinking at best, companies require practical thinking because reality is corporate suicide. Not everyone will have great communication skills - and as a team increases in size, this becomes increasingly difficult.

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with it either. Case in point - I've been in a situation as detailed toward the end of the article where all the devs on the team were feature leads, except we still had a designated overall lead. Just 4 devs on the team, all of us were very sr (principal or sr. principal devs). But the overall number of stakeholders in the product were probably well over 30 people, so it was still a big coordination ef…

That sounds like a project manager to me. I'm curious if you have anyone with that job title (and if so what they do) or if your "team lead" is acting as a de facto project manager to fill a void. If you don't have a dedicated project manager (which I suspect is the case), I'm also curious if you think your team lead is overworked. Maybe your team doesn't need full-time project management so it's more efficient to ha…

Yes, there was a dedicated PM - she was essentially at the top of the food chain, running the steering committee meetings (both the core team and individual feature teams) and coordinating the effort with all the team leads/managers (hardware, software, QA, product release engineering, regulatory, source control management, requirements engineering, and technical documentation). As I stated, there some 30+ people involved in the project. So the team leads/managers would at times do PM-like activities, more or less working hand-in-hand with the PM to get things through the system, organized, scheduled, signed-off etc.

BTW, I imagine you're mostly keying off the comment "He was the one who cleared pathways with other teams/resources (ie. ensured QA was on target to line up an availability window, how many engineers they could provide, etc)." That isn't an entirely true statement -- the PM would be the one to get this set in stone and pull rank if needed, esp. working with PMs for other projects or upper management. But as a team lead myself on another (albeit smaller) project, for instance, I would constantly be moving around the company talking with the other leads/managers to do exploratory work on where people were at even before the core team kicked off, building bridges so to speak. And between the core team meetings the unexpected would happen. Sometimes that would be a discussion with other leads, sometimes it would make more sense to bring it up with the PM, but generally speaking her plate was pretty full so I would take as much off of it as I could.

The team lead wasn't in particular overworked, he just spent the majority of his time in management type activities, perhaps about 1/3 of his time actually designing/coding/creating documentation.

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#83

Tech leads may not make sense for the author and some projects, but they absolutely make sense for other projects. This is why: 1) Development teams have churn, the tech lead onboards new members and gets them aimed(and kept) in the proper direction. 2) The tech leads decides on technology when developer A and developer B are deadlocked over MySQL vs Postgres, or any other stack choice. 3) The tech lead is the one ac…

I came out of lurker mode just to reply to this article.

I get the author's premise that capable developers don't necessarily need a lead. However, based on my experience, that is overly optimistic.

I've worked in large organizations for quite a while now and have run in to two specific situations where this mentality just doesn't work: - Need for a tie-breaker. I've been in places where the Sr Devs on different projects/applications (myself as one of them) have all disagreed on the direction to take the roadmap. As a result, we ended up with four separate projects/applications going four separate ways. All because there wasn't one person to get everyone in line. - Need for a tech lead to set the right direction. It's been a while since I have worked with a lot of talented, like-minded people that were all capable of making good technical decisions. For the past ten years, I have seen a huge trend to just finding the lowest cost resources. Granted, it has more to do with my situation, but that just goes to show that the author's position may be valid for him, it definitely does not apply to everyone.

I also believe in the following: - The Mythical Man-Month where the best team structure is similar to an operating room where the surgeon has complete control of everything that happens. He has ultimate accountability and what he says goes. - Also Peopleware where really good people are worth the money. If you don't get really good people, no matter how willing they are, they aren't going to make a solution as clean. And unfortunately, I'm in a world where we have decent developers who are always willing to jump on tasks, but they don't always make the best decisions. A tech lead would fix that.

Anyway, context is everything. What works for some might not work for others.

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#84
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favourite programming language, Rust, is designed by committee.

According to the Rust team page Rust has not just one "Tech Lead" but 6 who have the responsibility of overall direction of the project, subteam leadership, cross-cutting concerns Which to means if a deadlock happens on a subteam these six will be breaking it.

Yet in general, consensus is the guiding mode of operation for all teams. The core team has never overridden a team's decision against their will, and while such a thing is technically possible, it would be considered a catastrophic event, I'd imagine.

(Source: I am one of those 8 (not six))

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#85
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great. But we live in reality where lots of teams are not well functioning some or all of the time, and we still need to get things done even when we don't have the time, resources or influence to fix the team composition then and there. EDIT: I'd also argue that in most well functioning team few decisions needs to be taken by the team, because the team members know their role well enough and trusts the others to do…

>Great. But we live in reality where lots of teams are not well functioning some or all of the time Managers abusing their power causes way more dysfunction than a lack of authority ever does. >Unfortunately again, we live in the real world where decision making is often needed exactly because a lot of the time there are team members we can't let run rampant and make their own decisions. That isn't what managing by c…

> In the real world bad eggs don't "run rampant", they are reined in by peer pressure, and poor developers very often recognize that they are poor developers

I wish I lived in your world, but clearly we live in very different worlds.

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#86

The article pretty much ignores factors external to the development team. In my experience at a larger company, a key role of tech lead is as a central communication point for other teams / disciplines / projects. It becomes infeasible for every person working on a product to have to know exactly who to talk to for every question. Instead with leads, if I have a sw question, an electrical question, a service question…

>It becomes infeasible for every person working on a product to have to know exactly who to talk to for every question.

It is, however, perfectly feasible to ask such questions on a team chatroom. "Who knows about [x]?" is usually enough to get the right person to talk to and it means the lead doesn't keep getting interrupted.

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#87
post #50
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the only thing I was thinking this entire article. I'm a dev lead. If I had an entire team of my great engineers, my job would be easy. I'd simply delegate my duties to everyone else, and we'd all be nearly equal. The reality is I have 2 junior people who need to be guidanced through everything. I have one moderately experienced guy who just wants to be left alone to solve bugs on his own, in quiet isolation.…

Hey, quit!

I'm in a similar situation as ep103 and it isn't always that easy to just quit. Lots of things keep a person where they are that are unique to their own world. Plus, at this point in my career, I'm getting to the point where I am that slightly out of touch dev manager who has to catch himself from saying things like "Back in my day..." Plus, where would I go? Certainly not to a great place like the author's location where everything is so good that they don't need tech leads like myself.

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#88

The article pretty much ignores factors external to the development team. In my experience at a larger company, a key role of tech lead is as a central communication point for other teams / disciplines / projects. It becomes infeasible for every person working on a product to have to know exactly who to talk to for every question. Instead with leads, if I have a sw question, an electrical question, a service question…

>It becomes infeasible for every person working on a product to have to know exactly who to talk to for every question. It is, however, perfectly feasible to ask such questions on a team chatroom. "Who knows about [x]?" is usually enough to get the right person to talk to and it means the lead doesn't keep getting interrupted.

A team chatroom... what a nice idea. This was a larger, more enterprise company. Enough said?

But seriously, I think the answer depends heavily on company and team size. The role I mention is a lot less critical for smaller teams or when there are minimal different stakeholders involved.

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#89
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…

Agree with this. A few days after I started, the engineering manager (the guy who hired me) quit. After that, it was kind of a clusterfuck because the CEO refused to make any real decisions because he was afraid of upsetting any of the engineers. As a result, very few decisions got made, and any deadlocks resulted in hours of frustrating and anger on both sides. I tried to put my foot down on one of the projects that I owned and essentially said, "You put me in charge of this project, and this is how I want to do it," but the "committee" overrode my decisions and the CEO didn't back me up. A terrible way to run a team. I left a few months later.

So yes, I agree. Even if you don't have a manager, there must be a decision maker that has the authority and freedom to make those decisions, even if they don't directly manage the others.

Re: We don't need a Tech Lead

#90
A tech lead is not supposed to be a mediator. He/she is supposed to lead and that means understanding the business, the product, and the priorities enough to communicate as simply and as directly as possible. It's not about whether or not you need a "tech lead", it's about whether or not you have anybody, and I mean anybody, that can fulfill those tasks. It might very well be two people, or a team that can drive specific targets, doesn't matter. A "tech lead" is just a title that further complicates matters.
Post reply on HN