8 min read • Guide 825 of 877
Technical Leadership in Agile
Technical leaders enable teams. GitScrum helps tech leads track technical work, architectural decisions, and technical health alongside feature delivery.
Tech Lead Role
Responsibilities
TECH LEAD RESPONSIBILITIES:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ TECHNICAL DIRECTION: │
│ ──────────────────── │
│ • Set architectural vision │
│ • Make key technical decisions │
│ • Define standards and patterns │
│ • Evaluate technologies │
│ │
│ QUALITY: │
│ ──────── │
│ • Code review (especially complex changes) │
│ • Define quality standards │
│ • Technical debt management │
│ • Performance and security oversight │
│ │
│ ENABLEMENT: │
│ ─────────── │
│ • Mentor and coach developers │
│ • Remove technical blockers │
│ • Share knowledge │
│ • Pair on difficult problems │
│ │
│ DELIVERY: │
│ ───────── │
│ • Technical feasibility input │
│ • Effort estimation guidance │
│ • Risk identification │
│ • Sprint technical planning │
│ │
│ ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ │
│ WHAT IT'S NOT: │
│ ────────────── │
│ ❌ Making all decisions │
│ ❌ Assigning tasks │
│ ❌ Doing all the hard work │
│ ❌ Being the only one who understands the system │
│ ❌ Code gatekeeper │
│ │
│ MINDSET: Enable the team to succeed technically │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Balancing Acts
Time Allocation
TECH LEAD TIME BALANCE:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ TIME ALLOCATION (varies by team size/maturity): │
│ │
│ SMALL TEAM (3-4 devs): │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐│
│ │ Coding: 50% █████████████████████████ ││
│ │ Code Review: 20% ██████████ ││
│ │ Mentoring: 15% ███████ ││
│ │ Planning: 15% ███████ ││
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘│
│ │
│ LARGER TEAM (6-8 devs): │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐│
│ │ Coding: 30% ███████████████ ││
│ │ Code Review: 25% ████████████ ││
│ │ Mentoring: 25% ████████████ ││
│ │ Planning: 20% ██████████ ││
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘│
│ │
│ ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ │
│ STAYING HANDS-ON: │
│ ───────────────── │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐│
│ │ CODE STRATEGICALLY: ││
│ │ ││
│ │ ✅ DO: ││
│ │ • Complex/risky features ││
│ │ • Foundational/reusable code ││
│ │ • Performance-critical paths ││
│ │ • Proof of concepts ││
│ │ • Setting patterns for others ││
│ │ ││
│ │ ❌ AVOID: ││
│ │ • Routine features (let others grow) ││
│ │ • Time-sensitive deliverables (might get pulled) ││
│ │ • Everything (you're not the only dev) ││
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘│
│ │
│ PURPOSE: Stay connected to codebase AND grow team │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Architectural Decisions
Making Decisions
ARCHITECTURE DECISIONS IN AGILE:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ JUST-IN-TIME DECISIONS: │
│ ─────────────────────── │
│ │
│ ❌ UPFRONT: │
│ Decide everything before starting │
│ → Decisions made with least information │
│ │
│ ✅ JUST-IN-TIME: │
│ Decide when you have to, not before │
│ → Decisions made with most information │
│ │
│ ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ │
│ ARCHITECTURE DECISION RECORD (ADR): │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐│
│ │ ADR-023: API Authentication Strategy ││
│ │ ││
│ │ STATUS: Accepted ││
│ │ DATE: 2025-01-20 ││
│ │ AUTHOR: @alex (Tech Lead) ││
│ │ ││
│ │ CONTEXT: ││
│ │ We need to authenticate API requests from mobile ││
│ │ and web clients with different security requirements. ││
│ │ ││
│ │ OPTIONS CONSIDERED: ││
│ │ 1. JWT tokens ││
│ │ 2. OAuth 2.0 ││
│ │ 3. API keys ││
│ │ ││
│ │ DECISION: ││
│ │ OAuth 2.0 with JWT access tokens ││
│ │ ││
│ │ RATIONALE: ││
│ │ • Standard protocol, well-documented ││
│ │ • Supports mobile and web flows ││
│ │ • Team has experience ││
│ │ ││
│ │ CONSEQUENCES: ││
│ │ • Need to implement refresh token flow ││
│ │ • Adds complexity to client apps ││
│ │ ││
│ │ REVISIT: If performance issues arise ││
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘│
│ │
│ INVOLVE THE TEAM: │
│ ───────────────── │
│ • Share options and trade-offs │
│ • Seek input │
│ • Explain decision │
│ • Document for future │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Growing the Team
Technical Mentorship
MENTORING DEVELOPERS:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ CODE REVIEW AS TEACHING: │
│ ──────────────────────── │
│ │
│ ❌ "This is wrong, fix it" │
│ │
│ ✅ "This works but consider X because Y. │
│ Here's a resource explaining the pattern." │
│ │
│ ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ │
│ PAIRING STRATEGICALLY: │
│ ────────────────────── │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐│
│ │ WHEN TO PAIR: ││
│ │ ││
│ │ • Junior dev on unfamiliar area ││
│ │ • Complex problem requiring discussion ││
│ │ • Knowledge transfer opportunity ││
│ │ • Critical path work ││
│ │ ││
│ │ HOW: ││
│ │ • Navigator (you) + Driver (them) ││
│ │ • Explain thinking, not just answers ││
│ │ • Let them struggle a bit (learning happens) ││
│ │ • Ask questions instead of giving answers ││
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘│
│ │
│ GROWING TECHNICAL LEADERS: │
│ ────────────────────────── │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐│
│ │ DELEGATION LADDER: ││
│ │ ││
│ │ LEVEL 1: "Implement this specific solution" ││
│ │ LEVEL 2: "Here's the problem, propose a solution" ││
│ │ LEVEL 3: "Here's the goal, figure out the problem" ││
│ │ LEVEL 4: "Own this area completely" ││
│ │ ││
│ │ Move people up the ladder as they grow ││
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘│
│ │
│ GOAL: Work yourself out of a job │
│ (Team shouldn't need you for everything) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Technical Debt
Managing Debt
TECHNICAL DEBT MANAGEMENT:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ TRACKING DEBT: │
│ ────────────── │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐│
│ │ TECH DEBT REGISTER ││
│ │ ││
│ │ ITEM IMPACT EFFORT PRIORITY ││
│ │ ──── ────── ────── ──────── ││
│ │ Legacy auth High High P2 (plan) ││
│ │ Test gaps Medium Medium P1 (active) ││
│ │ Old API version Low Low P3 (backlog) ││
│ │ Monolith split High Very High P3 (strategic) ││
│ │ ││
│ │ IMPACT: Productivity effect if not addressed ││
│ │ EFFORT: Work to fix ││
│ │ PRIORITY: Based on impact/effort ratio ││
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘│
│ │
│ ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ │
│ SPRINT ALLOCATION: │
│ ────────────────── │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐│
│ │ SPRINT CAPACITY ││
│ │ ││
│ │ Features: 70% ██████████████████████████████████ ││
│ │ Tech Debt: 20% ████████████ ││
│ │ Innovation: 10% ██████ ││
│ │ ││
│ │ 20% = sustainable debt reduction ││
│ │ Adjust based on debt urgency ││
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘│
│ │
│ WHEN TO ADDRESS: │
│ ──────────────── │
│ • Boy Scout Rule: Leave code better than you found it │
│ • Planned: Allocate sprint time │
│ • Strategic: Large refactors as projects │
│ │
│ COMMUNICATE VALUE: │
│ ────────────────── │
│ "This tech debt work will improve deploy speed by 50%" │
│ "Addressing this now prevents 3-day outages later" │
│ (Business impact, not technical jargon) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Working with Others
Collaboration
TECH LEAD COLLABORATION:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ WITH PRODUCT MANAGER: │
│ ───────────────────── │
│ • Technical feasibility input │
│ • Effort estimation guidance │
│ • Trade-off discussions │
│ • Risk identification │
│ • "What's possible" vs "What's requested" │
│ │
│ ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ │
│ WITH SCRUM MASTER: │
│ ────────────────── │
│ • Identify blockers │
│ • Process improvements │
│ • Team health │
│ • Capacity discussions │
│ │
│ ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ │
│ WITH OTHER TECH LEADS: │
│ ────────────────────── │
│ • Cross-team standards │
│ • Shared services │
│ • Architectural consistency │
│ • Knowledge sharing │
│ │
│ ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ │
│ WITH ENGINEERING MANAGER: │
│ ───────────────────────── │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐│
│ │ TYPICAL SPLIT: ││
│ │ ││
│ │ TECH LEAD: ENGINEERING MANAGER: ││
│ │ • What to build • Who builds it ││
│ │ • How to build • Career growth ││
│ │ • Technical quality • Hiring/firing ││
│ │ • Architecture • Performance reviews ││
│ │ • Technical mentoring • Team health ││
│ │ ││
│ │ Overlap: Mentoring, team capacity, planning ││
│ │ ││
│ │ Communicate frequently to stay aligned ││
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘│
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘