The dominant tech lead in a quiet team
An engineering manager asks you to “fix” a tech lead on a seven-person team. In daily stand-ups, which regularly run 25 minutes, the tech lead answers nearly every question, corrects others’ estimates, and assigns follow-up tasks. Two junior engineers have stopped speaking in meetings, and retrospective actions are usually written by the tech lead and assigned to others. The manager is frustrated but has not given the tech lead direct feedback. The team delivers reasonably well, although code review is a bottleneck and only the tech lead can approve certain changes. The manager wants you to tell the tech lead to stop dominating. You have a coaching contract with the organization, not a mandate to manage the tech lead.
1. How do you handle the manager’s request and set up the coaching contract?
Read the worked answer
Clarify the request before accepting it. “Fix the tech lead” is a covert mandate and would damage trust if I acted as the manager’s agent without disclosure. I would ask the manager for specific observations, desired outcomes, and what they have already tried. I would explain that I can coach the tech lead if the tech lead chooses to work with me, and that I will not secretly report content back. I would also point out the system issues: the manager has not given direct feedback, and approval rights make the tech lead a genuine bottleneck. Agree with the manager on what success looks like, such as more balanced participation, faster reviews, and team-owned retrospective actions. Then contract with the tech lead: purpose, confidentiality, voluntary participation, and the option to stop. If the tech lead declines, the manager must address performance directly.
2. Outline a coaching conversation with the tech lead. What techniques and sequence would you use?
Read the worked answer
Open with permission and purpose: “I have some observations and I’d like to explore what is happening in meetings; is that useful?” Use specific, non-judgmental data: the 25-minute stand-up, the two juniors who have not spoken in the last three meetings, and review queue times. Then listen more than advocate. Ask powerful questions: “What do you notice about who speaks in stand-up?” “What is the impact on you when you answer every question?” “What would need to be true for you to hold back?” Explore the positive intention behind the behavior, such as risk control and delivery pressure. Offer feedback using observation, impact, and request, not diagnosis. Ask what experiment the tech lead is willing to try, such as answering only when asked or rotating facilitation. Agree on one small experiment and a review date. Avoid framing this as a personality flaw; focus on behavior, system constraints, and the tech lead’s own goals.
3. What would you do with the team and manager, and how would you measure progress without creating compliance theater?
Read the worked answer
Work at three levels. With the tech lead, review the experiment and reflect on what happened. With the team, facilitate an agreement about meeting participation and review ownership, and use a retrospective to surface whether people feel safe raising problems. With the manager, coach them to give direct feedback and to address the approval bottleneck, for example by widening review rights or pairing on restricted changes. Measures should be behavioral and systemic: speaking distribution in stand-ups, number of people who facilitate, review queue age, percentage of retrospective actions owned by the team rather than assigned by the tech lead, and a short anonymous psychological-safety pulse. Do not publish individual speaking scores. Watch for performative silence or the tech lead withdrawing entirely. If the manager only wants compliance, say so and recontract rather than pretending the coaching is voluntary.