The case for non-technical managers in technical teams

Breaking the Technical Hierarchy Trap

In tech, we often assume technical teams should be led by the most technically skilled people. This common thinking, while it seems sensible, might actually be stopping organisations from reaching their full potential. Promoting technical experts to management creates a range of problems that affect everything from innovation to career growth.

The guru effect

Think about when a brilliant architect or technical lead gets promoted to management. Their technical expertise—the very thing that earned them the promotion—often becomes a bottleneck. When one person's technical opinion weighs more than others, decision-making centralizes. Teams start deferring to this authority rather than openly discussing solutions. Innovation slows down, and the company unknowingly creates a single point of failure where all important decisions must pass through one person's technical viewpoint.

This "guru effect" creates problems that cascade through the organisation. Junior developers start second-guessing themselves, waiting for the technical leader's approval instead of exploring new approaches. Code reviews turn into exercises in matching the guru's preferred patterns rather than meaningful discussions. The team slows down as pull requests queue up, waiting for the one person qualified to approve them. What's more, the technical leader gets overwhelmed, trying to juggle management duties with being the final judge on all technical decisions.

The damage goes deeper than just slower delivery. Team members slowly lose their sense of ownership and freedom. They stop bringing new ideas to discussions, knowing that any major difference from the guru's preferred approach will likely be rejected. This creates a single way of thinking, where everyone's work starts to mirror one person's views and biases. Innovation stalls not because the team can't do better, but because they don't feel safe challenging the established patterns.

The single point of decision-making

This technical hierarchy also puts the organisation's technical sustainability at risk. When all key decisions must go through one person, their absence—whether from illness, holiday, or leaving—can paralyse the team. Knowledge concentrates in one place instead of being shared, creating risks for succession planning and business continuity. The guru becomes essential, but in the worst way possible: they're a single point of failure in the company's technical decision-making.

Perhaps most insidiously, this pattern tends to self-reinforce. As team members become more dependent on the technical leader's guidance, their own technical decision-making skills atrophy. The gap between the guru and the team widens, making it increasingly difficult to distribute technical leadership more evenly in the future. The organisation becomes trapped in a cycle where every technical decision, no matter how small, must be blessed by the authority at the top.

The influence problem

This gets especially problematic when we look at why technical experts move into management. Usually, it's because that's the only path to greater influence and better pay. This creates a strange situation: companies take their best technical people away from hands-on work and put them in roles that might not match their strengths or interests. The technical team loses valuable skills, and everyone learns that management is the only way up.

But there's another approach worth trying. When technical teams are led by managers with strong business sense and basic technical understanding—rather than deep technical expertise—something interesting happens. These managers don't have strong technical biases, so they can host more democratic technical discussions. They focus on what needs to be achieved rather than how to do it, encouraging different viewpoints from everyone on the team.

Shared responsibility

These non-technical managers (by which I mean those with enough understanding to talk to C-suite leaders, not those with deep technical knowledge) are great at aligning tech work with business goals. They bridge the gap between technical teams and executives, translating business needs into technical terms and vice versa. This alignment becomes more important as companies face tough choices about balancing technical innovation, architectural quality, and business objectives.

When managers don't claim technical authority, teams naturally develop stronger collective ownership of decisions. Peer reviews become more meaningful, and innovation thrives as different perspectives blend together. Technical leadership skills grow naturally across the team, creating a more resilient organisation.

The 'not technical' problem

I need to address a worrying trend in business: some people seem proud to declare themselves "not technical." In today's digital world, this is becoming as limiting as proudly saying you can't read or do basic maths. Every business leader needs some understanding of technology to make good decisions. This doesn't mean you need to write code, but you should understand technical concepts and their business impacts well enough to have meaningful conversations with technical teams.

The best technical team structure might not be one led by technical experts, but rather by business-smart managers who know enough about technology to be effective while keeping focus on broader company goals. These managers succeed by enabling rather than directing technical decisions, keeping technical talent engaged while encouraging collective decision-making.

Finding the right balance

This approach needs careful balance. Managers need enough technical knowledge to understand what decisions mean without feeling they must make those decisions themselves. They should be good facilitators, making sure all technical voices are heard while keeping discussions tied to business goals. Most importantly, they need to create an environment where technical leadership spreads across the team rather than focusing on one person.

Changing to this model isn't easy, but the benefits are worth it. Companies that do it well find their technical teams become more innovative, efficient, and aligned with business goals. Technical experts stay engaged in what they do best, while developing leadership skills naturally. And managers can focus on what really matters: helping their teams deliver value.

The key isn't getting rid of technical leadership - it's spreading it across the team while providing business-focused management that enables rather than dictates technical decisions. This approach leads to more innovative, efficient, and well-aligned technical teams that are better equipped to meet business challenges.