You do architect the system. You put forth the standards that others on the team need to follow.
While I do agree with you that you need to have people skills, the system absolutely needs to be architected. There needs to be someone at the head approving and disapproving. This ensures congruence across the entire application.
I am not saying that you have to be a dick to be an architect. You just have to know how to make one hell of an application. You have to ensure its consistency or its ultimate demise.
I didn't explain myself well in my last comment.
What I mean is that any software architecture needs to be humans-first rather than technology-first.
Some programmers choose architectures because they look cool from a technology point of view, and they fail to understand the human component this technology is trying to solve.
The first thing that needs to be architected is always your teams and, then, find the best technological solution that fits those teams.
But that means that, as an architect, you need to be managing other people.
I agree whole heartedly. There are always two sides to every coin. I think that in the long run you will always have the human element to deal with.
This is not a bad thing. Like I said my teammates are amazing and I love them. I just don't want the responsibility of being in charge of them. There are amazing people out there who do just that. I don't think that I am one of them.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.