Balancing technical debt with innovation - A leadership perspective

I’ve been on both sides of the fence, a frustrated developer dealing with technical debt, and the leader deciding whether to overlook it in order to ship sooner. I’ve seen first-hand what ignoring technical debt does to a project, it accelerates it into the “end of life” phase in the long run and frustrates everyone on a daily basis in the short term.

When you step into leadership, the choice isn’t simple. Going for the re-write is the bold move, you are in effect saying to the business:

hold on, whilst we sort this out, and when we’re done, we’ll be in exactly the same position as we are now.

The sell of quicker features, faster response times and further scaling opportunities gets drowned out by the fact you’re standing still, and depending on the debt potentially be for a considerable amount of time.

The art is in how you prioritise, communicate and then deliver.

1. Prioritisation is strategy

Not all technical debt is inherently bad; it could be that it’s born of a conscious trade off to move faster. But technical debt acts the same as financial debt; it compounds. There is a simple framework to use to assess each case:

• Severity: Does this debt impact customer experience, reliability or security?
• Frequency: How often does it slow or impact the team/delivery?
• Opportunity Cost: What new value can be unlocked by fixing it?

But that’s only half the battle, prioritising doesn’t stop at just the debt, any innovations need to be in that trade off – not every single “new idea” belongs on the roadmap, only those that move the business forward should.

2. Setting stakeholder expectations

This could have been the start and end of the list as it’s the most important. Your non-technical stakeholder doesn’t see technical debt, it’s invisible. To them “cleaning up code” just looks like a delay. Our job as leaders is to articulate the cost of debt into business terms:

• “This issue adds X weeks to every new feature development”
• “This risk could cause downtime worth Y in revenue”
• “If we invest now, we reduce delivery friction by Z%”

This needs to be backed up with a clear plan on how it will be delivered, and the communication does not stop there, it’s continuous. But this framing builds the trust and secures buy-ins for debt reduction alongside innovation.

3. Quick wins vs long-term stability

Sometimes, you need to show progress fast. Quick wins: a small refactor that speeds up deployments, or a new monitoring dashboard that demonstrates value and reassure stakeholders.

But balance those with structural work that doesn’t show immediate payoff. Things like re-architecting a service, standardising tools, or improving test coverage are longer-term bets. Leaders must protect space for this type of work, carving out capacity for the work that maybe isn’t immediately visible.

The key is linking the two, creating the quick wins to earn the right to invest in the long term – and be transparent about this, so stakeholders see the connection.

4. The leadership mindset

Balancing technical debt and innovation isn’t just a tactical game. It’s a mindset shift:

• Think portfolio: Treat debt work and innovation as a balanced investment mix.
• Be transparent: Share the trade-offs openly with your team and stakeholders.
• Celebrate both: Ship a new feature but also celebrate when the team deletes 15,000 lines of obsolete code .

Ultimately, the best leaders don’t choose between innovation and debt reduction, they integrate both into a sustainable delivery strategy, ensuring today’s velocity doesn’t compromise tomorrow’s progress .

Photo by Jon Flobrant on unsplash