These words were spoken by Lord Commander Mormont to Jon Snow at Castle Black, beneath the Wall – where leadership wasn’t about prestige, but survival. In tech, the stakes may not be life or death of a person, but the principle remains. If you want to lead one day, you must first understand the strength in humility. And if you want to be followed, you must earn trust; and the foundation in the roots of Flexiana is horizontal, there is no status based vertical hierarchy. Our relationships are crafted carefully based on mutual trust and respect, rather than by demanding obedience. Technical leadership doesn’t mean technical excellence. That’s the job of engineers and developers. A technical lead has far more important standards to adhere to: clarity, trust, accountability, empathy, and the ability to adapt their communication to bring the best out of others – not just themselves.

Too often, teams break down not because of a lack of talent, but because of misalignment in how people collaborate. The most brilliant developer can be left burnt out and demoralized if communication becomes a tool for control rather than connection. And the most visionary technical lead can miss their own blind spots if they believe feedback only flows downward.

The Fallout of Misunderstood Talent

There are times when a technically capable, motivated engineer walks into a new team ready to contribute — only to find themselves misaligned not on skill, but on expectations and communication style. They dig into the codebase, offer thoughtful documentation, ask questions, and aim for depth. But when the tempo doesn’t match the lead’s expectations, tensions emerge.

Communication starts to break down, and the emotional distance between intention and perception widens. Harsh reviews follow. Feedback arrives late or comes wrapped in judgment. Autonomy is mistaken for disengagement. Even when the work is correct, assumptions about intent and capability overshadow outcomes. Eventually, the engineer decides to leave – not because they couldn’t do the job, but because the environment didn’t let them do their best job.

Leadership Is a Two-Way Mirror

To lead technically is not to be the smartest in the room. It’s to be the most self-aware. A good lead knows how to give direction. A great lead knows when to pause and listen, especially when frustration arises. Mistakes happen. So does misalignment. But when those moments are met with ego instead of humility, teams fracture, trust erodes, reputation suffers.

What builds long-term resilience is a feedback culture based on:

• Curiosity before criticism
• Accountability up and down the ladder
• Psychological safety, especially for new voices

Followership Is Not Submission

On the flip side, followership doesn’t mean silence or obedience. It means being open to guidance, asking questions without fear, and holding oneself accountable to the standards of the team. It means knowing when to speak up, and when to step back and learn. Great leaders were once great followers. They watched, listened, learned the rhythms of a team, and then slowly began to guide them. They understood that authority comes not just from position, but from consistency, empathy, and earned respect.

The Real Standard of Technical Leadership

Yes, we want engineers who write clean, testable, maintainable code. But even more than that, we want leaders who:

• Own their communication tone as much as their architecture
• Course-correct with grace when wrong
• Build people, not just systems

Engineering is a creative field. When you try to squeeze or control every minute of your engineer’s time, you risk suffocating the very environment where innovation was meant to thrive. The feature you never envisioned, the elegant solution you didn’t anticipate – those are often born from autonomy, not micromanagement. Creative minds will leave the ship if there’s no room to breathe.

In a distributed, multicultural world of consulting and remote teams, leadership is more than execution. It’s cultural, emotional, and relational.

No matter how advanced our systems are, the hardest part of software will always be the human part.