Skip to main content

Tech Leads & Principal Engineers

Guide team-level technical decisions, mentor engineers, and ensure architectural patterns are applied correctly.

TL;DR​

Tech Leads guide team-level technical decisions, mentor engineers, and ensure architectural patterns are applied correctly. Principal Engineers work across teams, solving systemic problems and defining standards. Tech Leads have deep domain expertise and direct authority. Principals have broad expertise and influence without authority—they convince through technical credibility. Both roles are critical: leads scale team capability, principals scale organizational capability.

Learning Objectives​

  • Understand the purpose and scope of tech leads & principal engineers
  • Learn practical implementation approaches and best practices
  • Recognize common pitfalls and how to avoid them
  • Build sustainable processes that scale with your organization
  • Mentor others in applying these principles effectively
  • Distinguish between Tech Lead and Principal Engineer responsibilities
  • Design career paths for technical growth without management
  • Recognize when you need each role and how to support them
  • Avoid tech leads becoming pure managers (losing technical depth)

Motivating Scenario​

Your organization faces a challenge that tech leads & principal engineers directly addresses. Without clear processes and alignment, teams work in silos, making duplicate decisions or conflicting choices.

Real situation: You have a 50-engineer organization. You promote one talented engineer to "Tech Lead" for the Payments team (5 people). They stop writing code, become a manager, and lose technical credibility. Meanwhile, architecture decisions become inconsistent. Different teams use different patterns. No one knows who to ask technical questions.

At 50 engineers, you need:

  • Tech Leads: One per team, making technical decisions for that team
  • Principal Engineers: 1-2 across the organization, solving cross-team problems

Tech Lead for Payments team: "We're using PostgreSQL for transactions because we need ACID guarantees."

Principal Engineer: "I notice three teams are each building their own caching layer. Let me unify this into a shared library and present it at architecture forum."

This section provides frameworks, templates, and practices to move forward with confidence and coherence.

Core Concepts​

Tech Lead vs Principal Engineer​

AspectTech LeadPrincipal Engineer
ScopeOne team (5-15 engineers)Across multiple teams (50+ engineers)
AuthorityDirect (decisions made in team)Influence (recommendations; no veto)
Career PathIntermediate step toward managementSenior IC (individual contributor)
ResponsibilitiesTeam tech decisions, mentoring, architecture reviewStandards, cross-team patterns, systemic problems
Time on Code30-50% (still coding)10-20% (mostly design, mentoring)
Decision Making"Here's what we're doing""Here's what I recommend"

Tech Lead Responsibilities​

Decision Authority:

  • Technology choices (databases, frameworks, libraries)
  • Architectural patterns used by team
  • Code quality standards and reviews
  • Technical hiring and interviewing

Mentoring:

  • Pair programming with junior engineers
  • Code review feedback (not just approval/rejection)
  • Career development conversations
  • Teaching architectural patterns to team

Team Health:

  • Identify and escalate blockers
  • Ensure knowledge isn't siloed (anyone can explain the system)
  • Prevent burnout through sensible workload distribution
  • Foster psychological safety for "dumb questions"

Principal Engineer Responsibilities​

Cross-team Architecture:

  • Identify duplicated work across teams
  • Define shared patterns and libraries
  • Make recommendations on standardization
  • Guide technology choices across multiple teams

Systemic Problems:

  • "Three teams have different monitoring setups"
  • "We're using 15 different languages; should we consolidate?"
  • "Deployment process is fragile; how do we improve?"

Mentoring Tech Leads:

  • Help tech leads think through decisions
  • Share patterns that work across teams
  • Support tech leads in saying no to bad ideas
  • Help tech leads grow into their role

External Influence:

  • Present architecture decisions at forums
  • Document patterns and decisions
  • Contribute to technical strategy
  • Represent engineering in executive discussions

Purpose and Value​

Tech Leads & Principal Engineers matters because it creates clarity without creating bureaucracy. When processes are lightweight and transparent, teams understand what decisions matter and can move fast with safety.

Key Principles​

  1. Clarity: Make the "why" behind processes explicit
  2. Lightweight: Every process should create more value than it costs
  3. Transparency: Document criteria so teams know what to expect
  4. Evolution: Regularly review and refine based on experience
  5. Participation: Include affected teams in designing processes

Implementation Pattern​

Most successful implementations follow this pattern: understand current state, design minimal viable process, pilot with early adopters, gather feedback, refine, and scale.

Governance Without Bureaucracy​

The hard part is scaling without creating approval bottlenecks. This requires clear decision criteria, asynchronous review mechanisms, and truly delegating decisions to teams.

Practical Example​

# Tech Leads & Principal Engineers - Implementation Roadmap

Week 1-2: Discovery & Design
  - Understand current pain points
  - Design minimal viable process
  - Identify early adopter teams
  - Create templates and documentation

Week 3-4: Pilot & Feedback
  - Run process with pilot teams
  - Gather feedback weekly
  - Make quick adjustments
  - Document lessons learned

Week 5-6: Refinement & Documentation
  - Incorporate feedback
  - Create training materials
  - Prepare communication plan
  - Build tools to support process

Week 7+: Scaling & Iteration
  - Roll out to all teams
  - Monitor adoption metrics
  - Gather feedback monthly
  - Continuously improve based on learning

Core Principles in Practice​

  1. Make the Why Clear: Teams will follow processes they understand the purpose of
  2. Delegate Authority: Push decisions down; keep strategy centralized
  3. Use Asynchronous Review: Documents and ADRs scale better than meetings
  4. Measure Impact: Track metrics that show whether process is working
  5. Iterate Quarterly: Regular review keeps processes relevant

Success Indicators​

✓ Teams proactively engage in the process ✓ 80%+ adoption without enforcement ✓ Clear reduction in the pain point the process addresses ✓ Minimal time overhead (less than 5% of team capacity) ✓ Positive feedback in retrospectives

Pitfalls to Avoid​

❌ Process theater: Requiring documentation no one reads ❌ Over-standardization: Same rules for all teams and all decisions ❌ Changing frequently: Processes need 3-6 months to stabilize ❌ Ignoring feedback: Refusing to adapt based on experience ❌ One-size-fits-all: Different teams need different process levels ❌ No documentation: Unwritten processes get inconsistently applied

Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them​

Anti-Pattern: Tech Lead Becomes Pure Manager​

Problem: Tech lead stops coding, loses touch with reality, becomes isolated from team.

Why it happens: Promotion to "lead" often comes with administrative responsibilities (timesheets, performance reviews, hiring). Time spent managing leaves no time for coding. After 6 months, they don't understand the codebase anymore.

How to prevent:

  • Explicitly block 30-50% of tech lead's time for coding/architecture work
  • Don't make them a people manager (separate role)
  • Pair their technical compensation with coding contributions
  • Ensure code reviews are from tech lead, not manager

Anti-Pattern: Principal Engineer as Political Role​

Problem: Principal engineer title given to senior person for prestige, but role poorly defined. They have opinions but no clear responsibilities. Become decision bottlenecks or political figures.

How to prevent:

  • Define principal engineer as problem-solver, not gatekeeper
  • Measure impact: "How many teams adopted this pattern?" not "How many decisions approved?"
  • Separate principal engineer from management chain (reports to CTO or VP Eng, not through manager)
  • Make it clear: principals recommend, teams decide

Anti-Pattern: Trying to Make Every Tech Lead a Future Manager​

Problem: Organization assumes tech lead is training ground for management. Tech leads feel pressure to become managers to progress, even if they prefer coding.

How to prevent:

  • Create separate career tracks: management and IC (individual contributor)
  • Principal engineer is advancement for senior ICs without management
  • Offer competitive compensation for both paths
  • Explicitly say: "You can be a principal engineer without being a manager"

Supporting Tech Leads and Principals​

Time Allocation​

Tech Lead (7/5 split):

  • 70% coding, architecture, mentoring
  • 30% meetings, code reviews, team decisions
  • Weekly 1:1 with each team member

Principal Engineer (1:2 split):

  • 20% coding, proof-of-concepts, hands-on work
  • 80% design, mentoring tech leads, cross-team work
  • Monthly office hours with tech leads
  • Quarterly architecture forum presentations

Decision Rights​

Make explicit what decisions each role makes:

DecisionTech LeadPrincipalManager
New team member hiringInterview, recommendNot involvedFinal hire
Technology choice (single team)Makes decisionAdvisesEscalation only
Technology choice (org-wide)ParticipatesRecommendsFinal decision
Architecture patternProposes for teamProposes org-wideN/A
Promotion of team memberRecommendsEvaluates technical skillsFinal decision

This practice connects to:

  • Architecture Governance & Organization (overall structure)
  • Product & Architecture Alignment (cross-team decisions)
  • Reliability & Resilience (ensuring systems stay healthy)
  • Documentation & ADRs (capturing decisions and rationale)
  • Team Structure & Communication (enabling effective collaboration)

Checklist: Before You Implement​

  • Clear problem statement: "This process solves [X]"
  • Stakeholder input: Teams that will use it helped design it
  • Minimal viable version: Start simple, add complexity only if needed
  • Success metrics: Define what "better" looks like
  • Communication plan: How will people learn about this?
  • Pilot plan: Early adopters to validate before scaling
  • Review schedule: When will we revisit and refine?

Self-Check​

  1. Can you explain the purpose of this process in one sentence? If not, it's too complex.
  2. Do 80% of teams engage without being forced? If not, reconsider its value.
  3. Have you measured the actual impact? Or are you assuming it works?
  4. When did you last gather feedback? If >3 months, do it now.

Takeaway​

The best processes are rarely the most comprehensive ones. They're the ones teams choose to follow because they see the value. Start lightweight, measure impact, gather feedback, and iterate. A simple process that 90% of teams adopt is infinitely better than a perfect process that 30% of teams bypass.

Next Steps​

  1. Define the problem: What specifically are you trying to solve?
  2. Understand current state: How do teams work today?
  3. Design minimally: What's the smallest change that creates value?
  4. Pilot with volunteers: Find early adopters who see the value
  5. Gather feedback: Weekly for the first month, then monthly
  6. Refine and scale: Incorporate feedback and expand gradually

References​

  1. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010: Systems and Software Engineering ↗️
  2. Martin Fowler: Architecture Decision Records ↗️
  3. Forsgren, Humble, Kim: Accelerate ↗️