We don't need a Tech Lead
vvgomes.com
We don't need a Tech Lead
1–10 of 116 posts
Re: We don't need a Tech Lead
#2I 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 Mediator the power to break these deadlocks then you need to ensure that he has enough practical experience to make sane choices. And if you have a Mediator with the authority to break a deadlock and the experience to do so with mostly correct decisions you have what most people call a Tech Lead.
Re: We don't need a Tech Lead
#3In 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.
Re: We don't need a Tech Lead
#4Isn't the underlying assumption here that the team members know everything they need to know to make a decision?
While that may be true for, say, algorithm selection, I would argue that, at least in larger organizations, there are overarching architecture or standards that need to be considered, and that it may be a waste for the individual team members to constantly keep track of.
We had a super-smart team come in a few years ago, and work very independently to come up with an awesome standalone solution that worked in no way, shape, or form with the millions of lines of installed code. There's an argument to be made that perhaps that's great and they were not constrained by legacy code, but decisions like that should be made purposefully, not based on how a few smart people who know almost nothing about the broader business or technology feel.
Re: We don't need a Tech Lead
#5as a general rule statements asserting that one can do without what is often considered essential are supposed to take the form of "We don't need no stinking {{insert pertinent phrase}}"
Re: We don't need a Tech Lead
#6I 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…
What I don't like about this kind of articles is the one-sided way they explain things. I would have like he investigate how the tech lead role could also be improved.
I think you voiced the deadlock issue pretty well.
Re: We don't need a Tech Lead
#7See "conceptual integrity" in The Mythical Man-Month. There needes to be someone who resolves technical conflicts and keeps the design conherent.
Re: We don't need a Tech Lead
#8I 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…
To quote George W. Bush: "I'm the Decider"
and a "decider" is definitely needed.
Re: We don't need a Tech Lead
#9I 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 someone in the role as concierge could reach out and clear the uncertainty which would allow the team to unite on a sane technical choice going forward (in small increments).
Re: We don't need a Tech Lead
#10In 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.
I have worked in teams without a formal tech lead and yes, the most senior/confident developer would work like that (even without extra pay).
However, these teams also tended to be most consensus-driven. Decisions would take forever because there would be a tie and people would just put it aside, or they would avoid hurting other people's feelings directly (it often turned somewhat personal), etc. It was very inefficient.