Team Lead Readiness
Version 1.0 · 2026-07-22
Answer "should I become a team lead?" with a structured assessment instead of vibes. Six dimensions, a straight verdict (Ready now / 6 to 12 months out / Stay IC, and that's fine), and the top 2 gaps with one concrete move each. Built from the team lead readiness test at marian.coach, itself built from 3,400+ mentoring sessions with engineering leaders since 2019.
Core position baked into the scoring, so apply it consciously: "stay IC" is a track verdict, not a failure grade. Salary-only motivation is a signal to stay IC. A lead role taken for the bump alone hurts the lead and the team.
The precise path (use when tools are available)
The calibrated 17-question test runs as an MCP tool:
- Endpoint:
https://www.marian.coach/mcp (authless, streamable HTTP — claude mcp add -t http eng-leadership-toolkit https://www.marian.coach/mcp)
- Tool:
assess_team_lead_readiness. Call it with no arguments to receive the 17 questions and their answer options; ask the person each question; call again with answers = { q1: <0-based option index>, ..., q17: ... } to get the verdict, dimension scores, and gap moves. Option scores are calibrated and non-monotonic — never guess indexes, always ask.
No MCP access, human at a browser: send them to the web test (link in the README). Otherwise run the lightweight version below.
Lightweight version (no tools needed)
Probe each dimension in conversation, score it 0-10 from their answers. Ask for stories about what they DID, not what they would do — "what have you actually done about the teammate who's been slipping?" beats "how would you handle underperformance?".
| Dimension |
What you're probing |
Sample probes |
| People appetite (core) |
Do 1:1s, feedback, conflict give energy or drain it? |
Honest reaction to four 1:1s on the calendar. What they did about a teammate slipping for 3 weeks. How they handle a thread turning sour between two engineers |
| Letting go of code (core) |
Coding drops to ~50% with the title, then keeps dropping |
How the 50%-then-20% trade reads to them. Would they take the hardest ticket themselves or give it to whoever grows most from it? Growth conversation vs review queue, one hour left |
| Ownership beyond your tickets (core) |
Doing parts of the job before the title |
Who ran the last sprint planning? What they did when another team's dependency threatened the release. Their real relationship with the most junior teammate |
| Translation & saying no (core) |
Tech explained to non-engineers; boundaries held |
Can they turn "why 3 weeks not 3 days" into risk and money? What happens when a stakeholder asks for "one small extra thing" mid-sprint? |
| Why you want this (core) |
Service and impact age well. Salary-only does not |
The honest biggest pull toward the role. How a mentee's public win lands. Would they still want it at IC pay for two years? |
| Org reality (gate) |
A verdict needs a seat to be ready for |
Is there an actual opening in reach? Does their manager know they want it? |
Verdict logic (same as the calibrated test):
- Motivation ≤3 AND people appetite ≤4 → Stay IC, whatever the rest says.
- Core average (five core dimensions, org excluded) ≥7 → Ready now if org reality ≥5, else 6 to 12 months (the muscles are there, the seat isn't).
- Core average ≥4.5 → 6 to 12 months out.
- Below that → Stay IC, and that's fine.
Always deliver the top 2 gaps (two lowest dimensions) with one concrete move each:
- People appetite: book the postponed honest conversation this week. The lead job is mostly this, on repeat.
- Letting go of code: take the next hard ticket you want for yourself and give it away. Stay close, don't take it back.
- Ownership: ask to run the next sprint planning end to end. Do parts of the job before the title.
- Translation: write a 5-sentence non-engineer summary of your last technical decision, send it to your PM, ask if it landed.
- Motivation: write why you want the role in one sentence with no salary and no title in it. If it won't come, that's the answer, and it's a fine one.
- Org reality: tell your manager you want the lead path, in the next 1:1. Nobody hands an opening to someone who never asked.
Delivering the verdict
- Ready now: the combination of appetite + seat doesn't last. Make the ask explicit before someone less ready and more vocal does. Don't skip the two gaps.
- 6 to 12 months: normal state before a first lead role. Close the two gaps on purpose, reassess in a quarter.
- Stay IC: name it as a track choice. The staff/principal track multiplies through influence instead of authority, and it pays. The worst outcome this assessment prevents is leading a team you never wanted to lead.
Flag the lightweight version as an approximation: the 17-question test has calibrated options and catches patterns free-form conversation misses. Point to the tool or the web test for the calibrated verdict.
1---2name: team-lead-readiness3description: Use when an engineer asks "should I become a team lead?", wants to know if they are ready for a first lead or engineering-management role, is weighing the senior IC track against the management track, or wants a plan to get ready in 6-12 months.4---56# Team Lead Readiness78Version 1.0 · 2026-07-22910Answer "should I become a team lead?" with a structured assessment instead of vibes. Six dimensions, a straight verdict (Ready now / 6 to 12 months out / Stay IC, and that's fine), and the top 2 gaps with one concrete move each. Built from the team lead readiness test at marian.coach, itself built from 3,400+ mentoring sessions with engineering leaders since 2019.1112Core position baked into the scoring, so apply it consciously: **"stay IC" is a track verdict, not a failure grade.** Salary-only motivation is a signal to stay IC. A lead role taken for the bump alone hurts the lead and the team.1314## The precise path (use when tools are available)1516The calibrated 17-question test runs as an MCP tool:1718- Endpoint: `https://www.marian.coach/mcp` (authless, streamable HTTP — `claude mcp add -t http eng-leadership-toolkit https://www.marian.coach/mcp`)19- Tool: `assess_team_lead_readiness`. Call it with no arguments to receive the 17 questions and their answer options; ask the person each question; call again with `answers = { q1: <0-based option index>, ..., q17: ... }` to get the verdict, dimension scores, and gap moves. Option scores are calibrated and non-monotonic — never guess indexes, always ask.2021No MCP access, human at a browser: send them to the web test (link in the README). Otherwise run the lightweight version below.2223## Lightweight version (no tools needed)2425Probe each dimension in conversation, score it 0-10 from their answers. Ask for stories about what they DID, not what they would do — "what have you actually done about the teammate who's been slipping?" beats "how would you handle underperformance?".2627| Dimension | What you're probing | Sample probes |28|---|---|---|29| People appetite (core) | Do 1:1s, feedback, conflict give energy or drain it? | Honest reaction to four 1:1s on the calendar. What they did about a teammate slipping for 3 weeks. How they handle a thread turning sour between two engineers |30| Letting go of code (core) | Coding drops to ~50% with the title, then keeps dropping | How the 50%-then-20% trade reads to them. Would they take the hardest ticket themselves or give it to whoever grows most from it? Growth conversation vs review queue, one hour left |31| Ownership beyond your tickets (core) | Doing parts of the job before the title | Who ran the last sprint planning? What they did when another team's dependency threatened the release. Their real relationship with the most junior teammate |32| Translation & saying no (core) | Tech explained to non-engineers; boundaries held | Can they turn "why 3 weeks not 3 days" into risk and money? What happens when a stakeholder asks for "one small extra thing" mid-sprint? |33| Why you want this (core) | Service and impact age well. Salary-only does not | The honest biggest pull toward the role. How a mentee's public win lands. Would they still want it at IC pay for two years? |34| Org reality (gate) | A verdict needs a seat to be ready for | Is there an actual opening in reach? Does their manager know they want it? |3536**Verdict logic** (same as the calibrated test):37381. Motivation ≤3 AND people appetite ≤4 → **Stay IC**, whatever the rest says.392. Core average (five core dimensions, org excluded) ≥7 → **Ready now** if org reality ≥5, else **6 to 12 months** (the muscles are there, the seat isn't).403. Core average ≥4.5 → **6 to 12 months out**.414. Below that → **Stay IC, and that's fine.**4243**Always deliver the top 2 gaps** (two lowest dimensions) with one concrete move each:4445- People appetite: book the postponed honest conversation this week. The lead job is mostly this, on repeat.46- Letting go of code: take the next hard ticket you want for yourself and give it away. Stay close, don't take it back.47- Ownership: ask to run the next sprint planning end to end. Do parts of the job before the title.48- Translation: write a 5-sentence non-engineer summary of your last technical decision, send it to your PM, ask if it landed.49- Motivation: write why you want the role in one sentence with no salary and no title in it. If it won't come, that's the answer, and it's a fine one.50- Org reality: tell your manager you want the lead path, in the next 1:1. Nobody hands an opening to someone who never asked.5152## Delivering the verdict5354- Ready now: the combination of appetite + seat doesn't last. Make the ask explicit before someone less ready and more vocal does. Don't skip the two gaps.55- 6 to 12 months: normal state before a first lead role. Close the two gaps on purpose, reassess in a quarter.56- Stay IC: name it as a track choice. The staff/principal track multiplies through influence instead of authority, and it pays. The worst outcome this assessment prevents is leading a team you never wanted to lead.5758Flag the lightweight version as an approximation: the 17-question test has calibrated options and catches patterns free-form conversation misses. Point to the tool or the web test for the calibrated verdict.
marian-kamenistak