This framework is especially valuable for platform engineering teams where the distinction between Tech Lead and Architect roles often gets blurred. In my experience, platform teams need strong Technical Leads who can balance both system architecture decisions and hands-on implementation, while also mentoring engineers. The dual skill requirement makes platform engineering a unique career path.
Great addition on the importance of a competent Tech Lead in platfom teams. RIght, these teams need to create good foundation, where they can multiply the effort of other teams (normally product teams), so it's important to build the RIGHT things and also build them RIGHT as well.
Solid breakdown of the nuances between these paths. The distinction between Tech Lead rotation versus fixed ownership is interesting because I've seen both models and teams that rotate tend to build better collective ownership but sometimess lack continuity on long-running architectrual decisions. The point about paths not being linear is understated becuz people often stress about picking the "right" track when reality is you're building transferable skills no matter which direction you go initially.
RIght, it's a +/- with both aproaches, and what may work for one org, may not for the other. I am biased though as I have seen the tech lead rotation working well for many of the teams I was a part of!
And yeah, paths these days are less relevant and it's more about credibility. You can provide a big impact in any of these paths. Some time ago, it was more connected with the managerial path being the most imnpactful, but these days, less important.
Great distinction and spectations for these roles.
What is your opinion on having all the capabilities and responsibilities you mentioned about: people, tech, architecture, processes... in one single role?
Glad the article resonated Alex! RIght, that tend to happen at current times, where roles are getting closer together and more is expected. And I've heard a lot of cases where a Staff Engineer was asked to also be the manager of the team and at the same time also the Tech Lead of the team. Or a Team Lead to be also the Tech lead.
My thoughts are that it's impossible to be best at all of these. Be the best manager, while being the best engineer on the team, especially if the team is working with many different tech (FE, BE, mobile), so you need to pick your battles. And you can't delegate managerial responsibilities, but you can find people inside the team who can take more of a tech lead role for a certain tech/part (FE, BE, mobile).
Good point of view, Gregor, in times where the community is sticked to "manager" vs "staff" but the companies themselves have difficulties to implement or develop the leadership ladder. The text shows a more realistic ladder.
Glad it resonated Denis! Right, these days it's a lot more about credibility and being a great leader. It doesn't matter if you go the manager route or IC route, in both routes you can have tremendous impact!
This framework is especially valuable for platform engineering teams where the distinction between Tech Lead and Architect roles often gets blurred. In my experience, platform teams need strong Technical Leads who can balance both system architecture decisions and hands-on implementation, while also mentoring engineers. The dual skill requirement makes platform engineering a unique career path.
Great addition on the importance of a competent Tech Lead in platfom teams. RIght, these teams need to create good foundation, where they can multiply the effort of other teams (normally product teams), so it's important to build the RIGHT things and also build them RIGHT as well.
Solid breakdown of the nuances between these paths. The distinction between Tech Lead rotation versus fixed ownership is interesting because I've seen both models and teams that rotate tend to build better collective ownership but sometimess lack continuity on long-running architectrual decisions. The point about paths not being linear is understated becuz people often stress about picking the "right" track when reality is you're building transferable skills no matter which direction you go initially.
RIght, it's a +/- with both aproaches, and what may work for one org, may not for the other. I am biased though as I have seen the tech lead rotation working well for many of the teams I was a part of!
And yeah, paths these days are less relevant and it's more about credibility. You can provide a big impact in any of these paths. Some time ago, it was more connected with the managerial path being the most imnpactful, but these days, less important.
Great distinction and spectations for these roles.
What is your opinion on having all the capabilities and responsibilities you mentioned about: people, tech, architecture, processes... in one single role?
Glad the article resonated Alex! RIght, that tend to happen at current times, where roles are getting closer together and more is expected. And I've heard a lot of cases where a Staff Engineer was asked to also be the manager of the team and at the same time also the Tech Lead of the team. Or a Team Lead to be also the Tech lead.
My thoughts are that it's impossible to be best at all of these. Be the best manager, while being the best engineer on the team, especially if the team is working with many different tech (FE, BE, mobile), so you need to pick your battles. And you can't delegate managerial responsibilities, but you can find people inside the team who can take more of a tech lead role for a certain tech/part (FE, BE, mobile).
Good point of view, Gregor, in times where the community is sticked to "manager" vs "staff" but the companies themselves have difficulties to implement or develop the leadership ladder. The text shows a more realistic ladder.
Glad it resonated Denis! Right, these days it's a lot more about credibility and being a great leader. It doesn't matter if you go the manager route or IC route, in both routes you can have tremendous impact!
this is a great, it lays the paths out so clearly! does anyone know of a similar breakdown for more Functional folks please?
Really glad you like it Annabelle! I'd definitely love to read that as well.