Tech lead isn’t a great value prop, as it’s a responsibility / pseudo-title bump without a comp increase.
There is value in the title, but it comes with risk. Some people are willing to do it though, and that’s the signal companies may see in the future. Or the new tech lead burns themselves out and they never interview again, losing out on a chill career shipping code. It’s like a 4-year degree can say more about someone sticking to a commitment than about the knowledge gained. It says this person volunteered (sometimes, literally) for their group. A junior leader.
But in the same way four year degrees come from MIT and Grudger Technical Collegversity, tech leads also have a qualitative measurement.
If a tech lead is being swamped by PRs and has a team that is relying on those PRs to catch production issues, then the move is to address the inefficiency. Staying victim of a lackluster process is the role of the senior engineer cause that’s how it’s done ✅. (The juniors job is to not know they’re part of a lackluster system.)
By signing onto a team lead role, you’re representing the team and part of that is push back, politics and improving process. This is why the role is transistionary at the core: doing all that and being a top code contributor means that it takes a burst of energy and time to do one or both well. It’s not sustainable.
Being a lubricant in the gears of the process is middle management. A good team lead stand ups for their team. Being a middle manager at the team lead level is just before maliciousness. You’re still, partly, enlisted, not yet an officer.
The team lead fights for their team.