The Second Brain: The Art of the Strategic Technical Advisor

The Second Brain: The Art of the Strategic Technical Advisor

This article explores a unique technical leadership role that extends senior leadership capacity in complex organizations. Drawing from my experience as a strategic technical advisor, I’ll share how this partnership model creates value and navigates challenges at the intersection of technical and organizational domains.

The Unique Position

As technology organizations scale, their systems become increasingly interconnected—not just technically, but strategically and operationally. The most valuable insights often emerge not within individual domains, but at their boundaries and within the connective tissue between seemingly disparate organizations. Yet traditional organizational structures aren’t designed for this kind of boundary-spanning work, the leaders at the highest levels who span these boundaries don’t have the time or bandwidth to get into the nitty gritty and see that connective tissue.

The strategic technical advisor complements traditional principal engineers¹ through a different positioning within the organization. Technical advisors partner closely with senior leadership and focus on messy problems, typically in a complex space with multiple moving parts, they have both the flexibility and bandwidth to move across organizational boundaries where problems span multiple domains. Free from specific delivery responsibilities and existing outside traditional reporting chains, they can engage with issues purely on their merits, without the territorial concerns or priority conflicts that often constrain other roles. Drawing on their technical foundation, they develop just enough understanding of each area to see the connections between them, identifying patterns, dependencies, and potential risks that specialists—appropriately focused on depth in their respective areas—don’t have the vantage point to really see.

Imagine working on a jigsaw puzzle where the pieces aren’t just scattered across different rooms—they’re from different puzzles entirely. Some pieces are technical architecture, others are business partnerships, and still others are regulatory requirements. Each domain brings its own language, priorities, and constraints. And of course each involves human beings with different perspectives, incentives, and communication styles—adding layers of social complexity that are more challenging to navigate than the technical aspects.

For example, consider a company acquisition. While principal engineers often focus on the critical work of harmonizing tech stacks and ensuring system resilience, a technical advisor serves as an extension of the executive responsible for the overall integration. With the freedom to move between strategic altitude and technical depth, they investigate connections that the leader doesn’t have bandwidth to explore themselves—diving into technical details when needed, uncovering critical interdependencies, and sometimes shepherding specific aspects of the process.

From this unique position, they understand just enough about each piece—how engineering decisions impact partnership commitments, where architecture choices affect go-to-market timelines, how data migration intersects with compliance requirements—to spot potential misalignments early. This enables them to function at multiple stages of complex challenges: as an early warning system, helping the leader spot where different parts of the integration might be drifting out of sync; as a diagnostic partner who can uncover ground truth when progress stalls; and as a guide helping teams navigate toward aligned solutions when course correction is needed.

The Power of Being a ‘Second Brain’

The executive leaders I’ve partnered with possess remarkable intelligence, vision, and drive—often thinking many moves ahead on multiple chessboards simultaneously. Yet even the most capable leaders face natural constraints of time, attention, and perspective. Their days are filled with critical decisions that ripple across the organization, often made with limited time and pre-filtered information.

This is where the deep partnership with a strategic technical advisor creates unique value. Not by replacing the leader’s expertise or their reports’ domain knowledge, but by extending their capacity to see connections, explore implications, and integrate diverse perspectives.

It’s a relationship that evolves beyond traditional reporting lines into something more nuanced—built on shared purpose, mutual trust, and complementary strengths. The advisor often brings different perspectives and working styles that balance the leader’s approach—perhaps more analytical where they’re intuitive, more detail-oriented where they’re big-picture, or more behind-the-scenes where they’re outward-facing. The advisor becomes both a sounding board and an extension of the leader’s thought processes—a safe space to brainstorm without judgment and a trusted ally in navigating complexity. I discovered the depth of this dynamic unexpectedly when my boss characterized our working relationship by calling me his “second brain.”

This partnership proved particularly valuable in one significant project where my boss had a hunch that there was something more to it with a persistent problem. So I dug in, starting with the technical foundations—understanding how this part of the product worked under the hood. As data quality was a known challenge it followed to look into the lineage of data, where and why it might become disparate, and where and why there were challenges in compatibility. Each technical finding pointed to broader questions: How did business processes govern the flow of data? What feedback loops existed—or were missing—across organizational boundaries? Through following each thread and listening to people close to each piece along the way, I uncovered a complex chain of events spanning multiple technical systems and organizational processes—so intricate that no team within it could have pieced together the full picture.

By synthesizing these perspectives, I mapped the current landscape—identifying critical gaps across business processes, product approach, and feedback loops—and prioritized them from immediate concerns to longer-term strategic needs. I then outlined a path forward that included both tactical interventions and a vision for systemic improvements. This comprehensive assessment enabled my former boss and me to guide a combined leadership effort toward addressing the problem holistically rather than treating isolated symptoms.

Building Trust Throughout the Organization

The power of the strategic technical advisor extends beyond addressing specific challenges—it comes from continuously cultivating organizational awareness and trust throughout the company.

While technical documents and project proposals provide valuable information, the true nature of any system reveals itself through people. And by “system,” I mean something richer than just technical components—I’m talking about the complex interplay of technical architecture, business processes, human relationships, and organizational dynamics. By building relationships across the organization—from engineering to sales to executive leadership—the advisor gains insights into how things actually work. This relationship-building functions bidirectionally: creating safe spaces where people share broader organizational or ecosystem observations and concerns they might not surface through formal channels, while also establishing the advisor as someone approachable for leaders seeking preliminary feedback on specific initiatives before bringing them to senior executives.

The Art of Listening and Observation

This work of building organizational awareness is inherently fuzzy—it requires attentive listening, patient observation, and careful discretion. Some days might feel like endless coffee chats rather than “real work”. But over time, patterns emerge—missing feedback loops, mismatched assumptions, and broken connections that remain invisible to those closer to specific pieces. The work often yields a spectrum of outcomes, from small wins that improve daily workflows to identifying potential issues before they cascade into systemic problems that could derail multiple parts of the organization. Critically, the advisor must honor the confidentiality of these conversations, sharing insights selectively while protecting sources. This discretion—even with one’s boss—is foundational to maintaining trust.

Crafting Meaningful Momentum

This ongoing investment in relationships drives subtle yet impactful shifts. In one instance, I found myself helping bridge a gap between a non-engineering team and a platform engineering team. The non-engineering team needed a technical solution, but had already received a “no” from the engineers who would need to build it. Rather than immediately advocating for either side, I spent time with the engineering team—not to change their minds, but to genuinely understand their constraints. What were their current priorities? What kinds of problems typically aligned with their mission? What tradeoffs were they weighing? Armed with this context, I helped the non-engineering team reshape their approach—focusing on the business impact of the problem rather than prescribing how it should be solved technically. When the teams reconnected, they found common ground that neither had seen before. What struck me most wasn’t the specific solution they created together, but the shift in how they communicated. They developed a shared language that continued serving them long after this particular challenge was resolved. I received feedback that still makes me smile: “Keavy’s approach and follow-through demonstrated that she (really, really, really) cared about our success.”

Ripple Effects of Trust

Meaningful impact emerges through networks that reach beyond formal hierarchies. By operating outside traditional reporting chains, advisors become strategic connectors who bridge organizational challenges with quiet confidence. One org leader dubbed me their “Mr. Wolf”—a reference to the problem-solver from Pulp Fiction who brings calm to chaos. Like that character, the real value isn’t just in solving problems, it’s in the trust and confidence that builds over time. When people know there’s someone who will listen without judgment, has a track record of helping navigate tricky situations, and can see the bigger picture while respecting the details—that reputation itself becomes a form of organizational confidence.

The Partnership Equation

While broader organizational trust creates the foundation, the strategic technical advisor’s role is defined by a profound partnership of mutual understanding and courageous dialogue. Inspired by “The Courageous Follower,” this role demands the ability to speak truth to power—not through confrontation, but by creating a shared path to organizational success.

The art of this partnership lies in navigating difficult conversations with genuine care, creating a space where challenging perspectives becomes an act of collaborative problem-solving rather than criticism.

Once, my boss had a project he particularly cared about personally, and had made decisions to do what he could to make the project successful. In my chats with people across the org, I heard widespread concerns about how that decision had been communicated. It felt important to bring this feedback to my boss, in order to address these concerns. But despite my good intentions, the conversation went poorly. We each became defensive, neither truly hearing the other’s perspective. While we eventually moved forward, the interaction temporarily strained our partnership.

This moment became a profound learning opportunity for me. The most effective advisors become trusted thought partners—people who can surface complex perspectives without threatening the fundamental alignment and mutual respect that makes the partnership work. It’s a nuanced dance of support, challenge, and shared vision. When this role works well, it transforms from an individual function into an organizational accelerator. This success requires a delicate balance, with both sides bringing essential elements to create something greater than the sum of its parts.

For the advisor, it requires incessant curiosity, deep empathy, and a commitment to continuous learning across domains. You need to be comfortable operating with significant ambiguity while maintaining strong convictions about what matters most. And the ability to put the organization’s success ahead of personal recognition; this is not the land of straight-forward career ladders.

For the leader, it means extending real trust and active sponsorship by creating substantive opportunities for the advisor to be ‘plugged in’ in broader contexts. It requires creating space for candid, sometimes uncomfortable dialogue. This includes being open to perspectives that might challenge their thinking—even (or especially) on decisions they’ve already made or directions they feel strongly about.

Like any meaningful relationship, this partnership requires ongoing work. It’s not a standard reporting structure, but a strategic collaboration that must be actively designed, continuously refined, and approached with honest communication and the courage to navigate complex moments together.

Addressing Natural Concerns

When discussing this role with leaders across organizations, I’ve encountered thoughtful skepticism that deserves serious consideration. The concerns often surface in subtle ways, with questions that circle around organizational dynamics: “How does this role fit within our existing leadership structure? Aren’t the functional leaders already positioned to provide the insights and strategic guidance the executive needs? Will this role undermine or diminish the influence of direct functional leaders?”

This legitimate concern reflects careful thinking about organizational health and leadership accountability. In successful implementations, the strategic technical advisor doesn’t circumvent existing structures but complements them in specific ways. They operate with transparent alignment to the direct manager’s mission, ensuring that functional leaders understand the advisor’s mandate and how it supports rather than undermines their own work.

What ultimately distinguishes successful implementations from unsuccessful ones is clarity about the advisor’s purpose, consistent transparency with the broader organization, and a foundation of trust that extends in all directions. The advisor becomes valuable precisely because they can move across boundaries without threatening established roles—creating connections where gaps exist rather than replacing functions that work well.

When these elements align, the strategic technical advisor doesn’t add complexity to an already intricate organization—they help tame it, creating cohesion where there might otherwise be fragmentation.

Closing Thoughts

As technical organizations grow in complexity, the need for bridge-builders and systems thinkers grows with them. These are the people who can work in the spaces between teams, who can see patterns across domains, who can help leaders navigate uncertainty with greater wisdom and foresight.

What makes this strategic technical advisor role uniquely powerful is the combination of three elements that rarely exist together in traditional structures:

• First, the position at the intersection—not confined to a single domain, but free to move where complexity creates both risk and opportunity. This perspective reveals connections that remain hidden when viewed through a single lens.
• Second, the partnership with leadership that amplifies both vision and execution. The “second brain”: extending capacity and perspective precisely where technical complexity meets strategic imperatives.
• Finally, the foundation of organizational trust that transforms insights into action. Without the relationships that span hierarchies and functions, even the most brilliant analysis remains theoretical. With them, even the most intractable challenges become navigable.

When it works—when there’s true partnership between the advisor and leader, when there’s space to explore and connect dots, when there’s courage to have hard conversations—it can be brilliant. I’ve seen it unlock possibilities that seemed out of reach, help leaders make better decisions faster, and create ripples of positive change throughout an organization.

The emergence of roles like the strategic technical advisor reflects a broader transformation in how we understand technical leadership. As technology becomes more interconnected and organizational boundaries more fluid, we need professionals who can operate beyond traditional technical roles. This isn’t about creating new hierarchies, but about developing adaptive capabilities that allow organizations to navigate complexity with greater agility, empathy, and systemic understanding.
Whether through formal technical advisor roles or other arrangements, the future of technical leadership will increasingly demand bridge-builders who can translate between domains, see invisible connections, and create spaces for collaborative problem-solving. We need people who can help organizations navigate complexity while keeping human needs at the center. The challenges are significant, but so is the potential for impact.

Thanks to Andy, Brian, Katrina, Michael, and Tanya for helping me shape up a draft of this.

---

P.S. I’m actively seeking my next opportunity! If this sounds like something you need — help navigating complex challenges that span technical and organizational domains — please do get in touch.

While traditional job descriptions may not capture the full scope of this work, I’m excited to explore possibilities that extend beyond conventional boundaries. Reach out via LinkedIn or keavy [dot] mcminn [at] gmail.

1. I’m using principal engineers to refer to the folks typically one level above staff engineers, who may be partnered with a director as a Tech Lead for a medium sized organization. ↩