Case kit 7: the go-to engineer wants the hard feature again

Leans: management track · Laws in tension: Explosive Growth, Empowerment, Priorities · Camps: the proven person leads vs the mid-levels lead

Read the full case text from `case-bank.md`, case 7, out loud at the case slot (about 5 minutes).

To run this case: replace the four case slides in `slides/week-5-case-clinic.md` (the brief, the laws in tension, the both-tracks bridge, and the prepare-your-camp activity) with the slide block below, re-render the deck, and rename the case frame on the activity board with the labels below. The decision sheet in `worksheets.md` works unchanged for every case.

Slide block (Marp)

The slides for this case, on brand and ready to present. Click the deck, then use the arrow keys. Open full screen.

## Case: the go-to engineer wants the hard feature again
    The biggest client demo in company history is in eight weeks.
    
    The proven engineer expects to lead it, again. Two mid-levels are ready to grow, at the cost of 30 percent more time and less certain polish.
    
    You will now hear the full case, one page, 5 minutes. Listen for what has already been tried.
    
    ---
    
    ## Case: the laws in tension
    - Explosive Growth: every critical project to the same person adds output and loses a growth cycle
    - Empowerment: leading with "assists" is the costume of growth, not growth
    - Priorities: the demo is urgent; the team's ceiling is important
    
    Three laws, and they do not point to the same kickoff.
    
    ---
    
    ## One assignment, both tracks
    Whether you lead a team of reports or lead technical direction without reports, multiplying costs the same thing.
    
    EMs multiply by developing leaders among reports. ICs multiply by developing other go-to engineers.
    
    Both pay the same price: the next delivery may be slower while people grow.
    
    ---
    
    <!-- _class: activity -->
    ## Activity: prepare your camp
    Assigned camps, 10 minutes. One camp argues: Dina leads, the demo is not the place to practice. The other argues: Ali and Farah lead, Dina consults, the team's ceiling is worth the risk.
    
    Build your opening and your best evidence from the case text.
    
    Challenge: what is the other camp's strongest attack on you?

Board frame labels

• Frame title: Case: the go-to engineer wants the hard feature again
• Camp A zone: Delivery camp. Sub: Dina leads. The demo is one shot, optimize it. Post your opening and your best evidence, one sticky each.
• Camp B zone: Multiplier camp. Sub: Ali and Farah lead, Dina consults. Grow the ceiling. Post your opening and your best evidence, one sticky each.
• Decision zone question: What does your move teach Ali and Farah about how hard projects get assigned here?

Facilitator notes

What has already been tried: the last three critical projects all went to Dina, on time and excellent; Ali asked the question out loud ("how do I ever become that person?"); and Dina has already claimed this one in writing.

Cross-examination questions:

• Delivery camp: this is the fourth critical project in a row for Dina. Name the date when multiplication starts, because "after this one" has been said three times.
• Delivery camp: Dina is at full capacity and half the runbook has one name. What happens to the demo if she is sick in week seven?
• Multiplier camp: the demo lands 30 percent less polished in front of the biggest client in company history. Defend that to the CEO in two sentences.
• Multiplier camp: what exactly do you tell Dina tomorrow, word for word? "You are not leading this" needs a second sentence.
• Both camps: the middle option, Dina leads and the mids "assist." Attack it.

Debrief: expect near-consensus for the multiplier camp in theory and heavy hedging toward the middle option in practice. Push on the hedge: the case names it as the costume of growth. Who is willing to defend the middle honestly, and what would make it real authority instead of a costume?

← Case bank Facilitator guide