Leading in Tech, week 5

Week 5

The case clinic

Two real cases, two camps, and your own written call

Leading in Tech, week 5

Tonight is judgment, not content

Two real cases, anonymized from real teams, read live. You did not need to prepare anything for tonight.

You will argue an assigned side, then write the move you would actually make.

You have already learned all the frameworks. Tonight tests how you use them.

Leading in Tech, week 5

Final teach-back

The last pair, 8 minutes, both speak: the framework, an owned story, and where the law breaks.

Then 7 minutes of structured discussion. Challenger, connector, summarizer, one last time.

Leading in Tech, week 5

Camps are assigned, not chosen

Half the room argues one path, half the other. You may get the side your instinct disagrees with. That is the point.

Defending a position you did not pick shows you the strongest case against your own.

In case 2, the camps reverse.

Leading in Tech, week 5

Case 1: the migration two teams refuse to adopt

A Staff engineer's platform migration is technically superior and completely stalled.

One team lead resists it openly. Another agrees in every meeting, then delays every step.

You will now hear the full case, one page, 5 minutes. Listen for what has already been tried.

Leading in Tech, week 5

Case 1: the laws in tension

  • Influence: no title will make these two leads move
  • Buy-In: they heard the migration; did they ever buy the engineer?
  • Timing: a right move at the wrong moment still fails

Three laws, and they do not point to the same move.

Leading in Tech, week 5

One migration, both tracks

Whether you lead a team of reports or lead technical direction without reports, this case is yours.

The IC track runs on exactly this: scope grows through influence, not headcount.

An EM's failed reorg fails the same way as this migration: people heard the idea, but they did not buy the person.

Leading in Tech, week 5

Activity 1: prepare your camp

Assigned camps, 10 minutes. One camp builds the escalation path: take it up the chain. The other builds the coalition path: win the leads without escalating.

Build your opening and your best evidence from the case text.

Challenge: what is the other camp's strongest attack on you?

Leading in Tech, week 5

The debate: 15 minutes, moderated

Opening position from each camp. One rebuttal each. Then my cross-examination.

Attack the argument, not the person.

Name the law or framework behind every claim you make.

Leading in Tech, week 5

Activity 2: your move in 3 lines

5 minutes, silent, solo. Forget your camp. Write the move you would actually make, in 3 lines.

Under it, name the laws and frameworks that decided it.

Challenge: would your 3 lines survive the cross-examination you just watched?

Leading in Tech, week 5

Debrief: there is no answer key

3 to 4 of you read your 3 lines. We map where the room split.

There is no answer key tonight, only defensible judgment.

The frameworks narrow your options. They do not make the call for you.

Leading in Tech, week 5

Break

Back in 5 minutes

Leading in Tech, week 5

Case 2: the lead who will not delegate

A new EM absorbs all the critical-path work before a hard deadline.

Two senior engineers sit idle. One of them is threatening to leave.

Camps are reversed from case 1. You will now hear the full case, one page, 5 minutes. Listen for what has already been tried.

Leading in Tech, week 5

Case 2: the laws in tension

  • Empowerment: "I can do it faster myself" is the anti-law, and this EM is doing exactly that
  • Priorities: absorbing everything means deciding nothing
  • Sacrifice: working every night for the deadline feels like dedication; is it leadership?

Again, three laws, and they pull in different directions.

Leading in Tech, week 5

One deadline, both tracks

Whether you lead a team of reports or lead technical direction without reports, you have held work you should have handed over.

ICs hoard the component only they understand. EMs hoard decisions.

Same fear, same audit.

Leading in Tech, week 5

Activity 3: prepare the opposite camp

10 minutes. One camp argues: confront the EM and force the handover now. The other camp argues: protect the deadline, fix delegation after.

Camps are reversed: the escalation camp from case 1 now argues the deadline side, the coalition camp now argues the confrontation side.

Build your opening and your best evidence from the case text.

Challenge: what did your case 1 camp teach you to attack in this one?

Leading in Tech, week 5

Case 2 debate: 15 minutes, moderated

Same rules as case 1: opening position from each camp, one rebuttal each, then my cross-examination.

Attack the argument, not the person.

Name the law or framework behind every claim you make.

Leading in Tech, week 5

Activity 4: your move in 3 lines, again

5 minutes, silent, solo. Your actual move for case 2, in 3 lines, plus the laws and frameworks that decided it.

Challenge: could you defend this move face to face with the EM in the case?

Leading in Tech, week 5

Debrief: did your method change, or only the case?

Read your 3 lines. Same room, opposite camps, different call.

Notice what stayed constant in how you decided. That is your leadership style, on paper.

A judgment you can defend from both camps is what this course was built for.

Leading in Tech, week 5

Capstone commitments

8 minutes, one line each: the behavior you will run for 30 days, and your start date.

You submitted the plan on Wednesday. No artifact means not done.

The 30-day clock starts on the date you state right now.

Leading in Tech, week 5

The succession staircase

  • Achievement: you do great things yourself
  • Success: you empower people to do great things with you
  • Significance: you develop leaders who do great things
  • Legacy: you put leaders in place who keep doing great things without you

Four weeks, four arcs, one staircase. Tonight's commitment is your next step on it.

Source: John Maxwell, the law of legacy

Leading in Tech, week 5

Before you go

  • Book your 60-minute 1:1 if you have not. The Zcal link is in the group, the window closes at day 30
  • The day-30 reassessment: the same 24 items, on [date]. The form comes to the group

Your experiment starts on the date you just said out loud. What will your evidence show at day 30?