A question frequently arises regarding the necessity of numerous Squad Leads and Architects within modern technology teams. It's pertinent to evaluate whether these roles consistently deliver tangible value, or if they inadvertently introduce inefficiencies into project timelines. In some observations, Squad Leads appear to operate without demonstrable deep technical proficiency, often under the direction of Tech Leads within the team, and their function seems to resemble that of a Scrum Master or an intermediary. Similarly, the contemporary relevance of dedicated Architects warrants examination, particularly given the prevalence of cloud-based solutions and the readily available, robust architectural frameworks provided by cloud platform vendors. Specifically, within Infrastructure and Data teams, the demonstrable need for both Squad Leads and dedicated Architecture functions seems less apparent.
8 replies (most recent on top)
It’s hilarious there are so many wasteful roles in a group that is supposed to eliminate waste.
Replying to the comment below: No. Ops squad do not need SL and SM. Need someone who is technical or lead Ops who can either work as SL or SM. Another PA had the same issue and leaders didn't bother but team members worked their way up and moved SM out. So they only have TL handling SL/ SM which is rare. It's insane to see so much waste in terms of people and roles at Fidelity.
Does an operations squad handling tickets need a squad leader? A scrum master suffice for 80% of the time and chapter leader may cover the remaining 20%. Yet, the empire builders will institute a squad leader anyway. So you get three leaders for a ops squad of 2 engineers : )
This was the stupidest post I read today.
My SL defining the roadmap, taking the heat from PALs/Domain leads while letting us concentrate on the work is priceless.
In order for me to do great work, I need to know which of the 50 things is actually important and what 3 things we should do even do. The SL does that and the negativity/aggression that comes from denying the 47 things all goes to the SL.
Also, I don’t want to be in tons of stakeholder calls and play politics either. Let the SL do that, determine the vision, ideate, and isolate us from the unnecessary noise.
OP, you are d-mb.
I have to chuckle about comparing a squad lead to a scrum master. Commenters on this site constantly questions the need for scrum masters and when many were laid off last year people were brutal discussing the role and the team members in that role. Is the OP supposed to be a dig at a SL ? They are 2 distinct roles. The SL should not be functioning as a SM. The SL is responsible for championing and understanding agile practices - this is something the whole org should be doing for agile to be successful - but the SM is at a lower level working with the team day to day to help with impediments and coaching the team.
Some leaders are technically very strong where they have knowledge to lead a team and work along with them. There are many who don’t know anything as this post says are glorified Scrum Masters and don’t even do basic PO responsibilities but delegate to team. Some SL’s hold VP position with one squad assigned with no tech experience, some in FI IWMS and in other groups but they know very well how to manage up and they get paid so high, presenting to higher ups all that team does. Is it really necessary to have a VP position to lead a team? It’s nothing but team leader title that was earlier changed to squad leader. But SL’s who has technical experience leading strong and respect that!
Fidelity doesn’t understand that more people isn’t better. They really added so many layers of management that it’s difficult to get something done.
Well said. The challenge is you and me, us at the bottom see clearly which CL / SL / GCL / GSL / Architects can be safely eliminated, yet this knowledge has no way make it up, even though the upper managements want and need the very knowledge. We're in a bind, deadlock, whatever you call it.