I wrote the framework here: what each level is, why it breaks, and why it matters.
If you recognize the pattern—burnout despite stability—this is worth 5 minutes.
insights.wa-systems.eu/the-three-le...

#techLeadership #EngineeringLeadership

Strategy: "Where are we going?"
Operations: "How do we build the system?"
Tactical: "What ships this week?"
They should flow in sequence. Instead, they collapse into chaos. Someone (usually the CTO) has to hold it all.

So, are we moving the needle in the right direction? These six signals answer it. Not your gut. Not activity. Not hope. Signals.

Which signals do you monitor in your projects?

#techLeadership #EngineeringLeadership #FractionalVP

Is the related product metric moving in the expected direction?
Did it unblock or accelerate downstream work as expected?
Was the prioritization call correct? (Did it actually matter?)

All six together close the loop: execution + outcome validation.

These measure execution quality and team friction. But they don't tell you if you picked the right thing to build.

You need three more signals—these measure if the strategy was right.

3 signals tell you if the team is executing well:

How long did it take to go from idea to delivery? (velocity, friction)
How many rewrites & changes of plan did the team go through? (planning quality, requirement clarity)
Did the team manage to deliver in the allocated time? (estimation accuracy)

Your role as a lead? Ultimately to remove yourself from the Tactical part totally. Trust your team. To do that: you help set strategy, but also remove hurdles on the way.
But here's what's missing: how do you know you're moving the needle?

This one question draws together:

Vision: without it, "right direction" is uncertain and bound to change on a whim
Strategy: how are projects and choices putting us closer to the Vision's aim?
Operational: what comes first to get closer? Who is best suited?
Tactical: execution of the steps

That's fractional leadership work. Helping teams and orgs remember that the turtle actually does win—but you have to stay in character when the hare is visibly moving.

The math works out though. Less planning = more chaotic shipping = slower long-term velocity. More intentional pace = better decisions = faster real delivery. But the second path requires believing in it when stakeholders get antsy.

What actually works requires sustained effort to resist the anxiety of appearing idle. You need planning cycles. You need time for debt paydown. You need time to think. None of these feel productive in the moment.

The pattern: leadership wants visible progress. Engineers want to ship. Both get anxious during planning time. So the cycle becomes: plan less, ship faster, accumulate debt, move slower. Then do it again.

It's written mostly in Ruby, with tests (rspec).
Sharing this in case it helps someone else too. The README files already have enough to get started. Here is also a doc site: odysseus.wa-systems.eu

Using other tools as examples and basis, and iterating with AI tools, I managed to get all features I needed in a couple of sessions across 3 days.

So, here is Odysseus, a tool to deploy containerized apps on servers through SSH with Caddy as reverse proxy: github.com/WA-Systems-E...

Yet pairing also reveals something: which engineers can actually lead.
Some step up immediately. Some develop over time. Some never will.
And that information? It's gold for scaling.
insights.wa-systems.eu/mini-teams-o...
#engineering #leadership #scaling

Pairs give you:
- Faster decisions
- Better code quality
- Reduced CTO load

But they're fragile. One absence = one person trying to carry the whole project.
This is where most teams hit a wall.

The interesting part? Once you see it happening, the path forward becomes obvious. That's what Part 2 will explore.

insights.wa-systems.eu/contractor-s...

#engineering #leadership #scaling

Been watching this pattern across multiple client engagements. It's not about "swarms are bad"—it's about understanding the phase change in how teams work.