Course 7 - Senior FDE Practice Leadership

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach The Senior FDE Identity: From Doer to Multiplier through the course lens of coaching, hiring, practice operating rhythm, knowledge compounding, difficult conversations, and senior IC or manager choice, anchored in a concrete field decision in the selected field context.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 6.8.
• Prepare a weak and strong example of the 7.1 The Senior FDE Identity: From Doer to Multiplier instructor artifact.
• Choose the exact pause point where learners must show evidence before discussion continues.

Suggested flow

1. 7 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
2. 11 min - model the core concept or move
3. 24 min - learner artifact production or simulation
4. 12 min - critique against the evidence standard
5. 6 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

• Ask what the senior FDE should make easier for the next person.
• Ask learners to answer: How does this learner multiply the capability of other FDEs without lowering standards?
• Model the concept with a concrete operational example, then ask learners to apply it to a new scenario.

Evidence to collect

• The artifact names the field decision connected to The Senior FDE Identity: From Doer to Multiplier.
• The learner separates claims, assumptions, observations, and evidence.
• The output can be reviewed against Milestone 1.
• The formative answer addresses: What is the fastest signal that you've crossed from IC FDE to senior FDE?

Formative check

What is the fastest signal that you've crossed from IC FDE to senior FDE?

Reject or remediate

• Reject submissions that only summarize The Senior FDE Identity: From Doer to Multiplier without producing an inspectable artifact.
• Do not let vocabulary recognition stand in for usable judgment.
• Reject work that hides the decision owner, risk, or next action.

Rubric focus

• Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
• Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
• Risks and limits are explicit.
• Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed 7.1 The Senior FDE Identity: From Doer to Multiplier instructor artifact and ask them to improve the evidence column.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend one tradeoff in The Senior FDE Identity: From Doer to Multiplier against a skeptical sponsor.

Remediation path

• Have the learner restate the decision, evidence, and weakest assumption in three sentences.
• Require one revision that makes the artifact inspectable by a sponsor or reviewer.
• Pair the learner with a peer reviewer for a five-minute evidence audit.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions through the course lens of coaching, hiring, practice operating rhythm, knowledge compounding, difficult conversations, and senior IC or manager choice, anchored in a concrete field decision in the selected field context.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 7.1.
• Prepare a weak and strong practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions artifact for 7.2.
• Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

Suggested flow

1. 9 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
2. 14 min - model the core concept or move
3. 30 min - learner artifact production or simulation
4. 15 min - critique against the evidence standard
5. 7 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

• Separate feedback on person, behavior, artifact, and system.
• Ask learners to answer: How does this learner multiply the capability of other FDEs without lowering standards?
• Have learners find the decision point, the missing evidence, and the consequence of a poor choice.

Evidence to collect

• Leadership artifact defines observable behavior, feedback loop, owner, and follow-up cadence.
• Hiring or coaching rubric uses evidence and bias controls.
• Practice cadence protects eval hygiene and knowledge reuse.
• Difficult conversation script states decision, risk, empathy, and next step.

Formative check

Which coaching mistake creates the most damage to a junior FDE's growth?

Reject or remediate

• Reject vague coaching encouragement without artifact-level feedback.
• Reject hiring criteria based only on tool familiarity.
• Reject practice plans that rely on the senior FDE personally fixing every issue.

Rubric focus

• Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
• Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
• Risks and limits are explicit.
• Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

• Have the learner rewrite feedback around behavior, artifact, and next action.
• Add one signal and one anti-signal to the rubric.
• Rehearse the difficult sentence out loud before revising the script.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions through the course lens of coaching, hiring, practice operating rhythm, knowledge compounding, difficult conversations, and senior IC or manager choice, anchored in a concrete field decision in Tech ecosystem.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 7.2.
• Prepare a weak and strong practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions artifact for 7.3.
• Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

Suggested flow

1. 11 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
2. 16 min - model the core concept or move
3. 36 min - learner artifact production or simulation
4. 18 min - critique against the evidence standard
5. 9 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

• Use practice cadence to reveal whether standards are actually maintained.
• Ask learners to answer: How does this learner multiply the capability of other FDEs without lowering standards?
• Demonstrate one small move, then shift quickly into learner artifact production and review.

Evidence to collect

• Leadership artifact defines observable behavior, feedback loop, owner, and follow-up cadence.
• Hiring or coaching rubric uses evidence and bias controls.
• Practice cadence protects eval hygiene and knowledge reuse.
• Difficult conversation script states decision, risk, empathy, and next step.

Formative check

Which interview signal is the single best predictor of FDE on-the-job success?

Reject or remediate

• Reject vague coaching encouragement without artifact-level feedback.
• Reject hiring criteria based only on tool familiarity.
• Reject practice plans that rely on the senior FDE personally fixing every issue.

Rubric focus

• Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
• Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
• Risks and limits are explicit.
• Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

• Have the learner rewrite feedback around behavior, artifact, and next action.
• Add one signal and one anti-signal to the rubric.
• Rehearse the difficult sentence out loud before revising the script.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions through the course lens of coaching, hiring, practice operating rhythm, knowledge compounding, difficult conversations, and senior IC or manager choice, anchored in a concrete field decision in the selected field context.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 7.3.
• Prepare a weak and strong practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions artifact for 7.4.
• Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

Suggested flow

1. 7 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
2. 11 min - model the core concept or move
3. 24 min - learner artifact production or simulation
4. 12 min - critique against the evidence standard
5. 6 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

• Make learners rehearse exact language for sponsor pushback and scope creep.
• Ask learners to answer: How does this learner multiply the capability of other FDEs without lowering standards?
• Model the concept with a concrete operational example, then ask learners to apply it to a new scenario.

Evidence to collect

• Leadership artifact defines observable behavior, feedback loop, owner, and follow-up cadence.
• Hiring or coaching rubric uses evidence and bias controls.
• Practice cadence protects eval hygiene and knowledge reuse.
• Difficult conversation script states decision, risk, empathy, and next step.

Formative check

What is the leading indicator that a pod-of-pods manager is losing the practice?

Reject or remediate

• Reject vague coaching encouragement without artifact-level feedback.
• Reject hiring criteria based only on tool familiarity.
• Reject practice plans that rely on the senior FDE personally fixing every issue.

Rubric focus

• Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
• Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
• Risks and limits are explicit.
• Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

• Have the learner rewrite feedback around behavior, artifact, and next action.
• Add one signal and one anti-signal to the rubric.
• Rehearse the difficult sentence out loud before revising the script.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach evaluation design, golden datasets, cut scores, and CI gates through the course lens of coaching, hiring, practice operating rhythm, knowledge compounding, difficult conversations, and senior IC or manager choice, anchored in a concrete field decision in Tech ecosystem.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 7.4.
• Prepare a weak and strong evaluation design, golden datasets, cut scores, and CI gates artifact for 7.5.
• Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

Suggested flow

1. 9 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
2. 14 min - model the core concept or move
3. 30 min - learner artifact production or simulation
4. 15 min - critique against the evidence standard
5. 7 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

• Ask what the senior FDE should make easier for the next person.
• Ask learners to answer: How does this learner multiply the capability of other FDEs without lowering standards?
• Have learners find the decision point, the missing evidence, and the consequence of a poor choice.

Evidence to collect

• Eval plan includes a representative golden dataset, ideally at least 25 rows for this lab.
• Learner names evaluator types, cut scores, failure buckets, and review cadence.
• CI or release gate behavior is defined before interface polish.
• A/B or before/after evidence explains what changed and why it matters.

Formative check

Why does practice-wide eval hygiene compound while individual pod evals decay?

Reject or remediate

• Reject evals that only report vibes, screenshots, or a single happy-path answer.
• Reject plans without cut scores or a named remediation path.
• Reject observability that cannot identify which failure bucket occurred.

Rubric focus

• Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
• Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
• Risks and limits are explicit.
• Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed evaluation design, golden datasets, cut scores, and CI gates artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the evaluation design, golden datasets, cut scores, and CI gates tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

• Have the learner add five hard negative examples to the dataset.
• Require one evaluator tied to business risk and one tied to technical behavior.
• Ask for the exact condition that blocks deployment.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions through the course lens of coaching, hiring, practice operating rhythm, knowledge compounding, difficult conversations, and senior IC or manager choice, anchored in a concrete field decision in the selected field context.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 7.5.
• Prepare a weak and strong practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions artifact for 7.6.
• Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

Suggested flow

1. 11 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
2. 16 min - model the core concept or move
3. 36 min - learner artifact production or simulation
4. 18 min - critique against the evidence standard
5. 9 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

• Separate feedback on person, behavior, artifact, and system.
• Ask learners to answer: How does this learner multiply the capability of other FDEs without lowering standards?
• Demonstrate one small move, then shift quickly into learner artifact production and review.

Evidence to collect

• Leadership artifact defines observable behavior, feedback loop, owner, and follow-up cadence.
• Hiring or coaching rubric uses evidence and bias controls.
• Practice cadence protects eval hygiene and knowledge reuse.
• Difficult conversation script states decision, risk, empathy, and next step.

Formative check

Which difficult conversation is the load-bearing one for a senior FDE?

Reject or remediate

• Reject vague coaching encouragement without artifact-level feedback.
• Reject hiring criteria based only on tool familiarity.
• Reject practice plans that rely on the senior FDE personally fixing every issue.

Rubric focus

• Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
• Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
• Risks and limits are explicit.
• Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

• Have the learner rewrite feedback around behavior, artifact, and next action.
• Add one signal and one anti-signal to the rubric.
• Rehearse the difficult sentence out loud before revising the script.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions through the course lens of coaching, hiring, practice operating rhythm, knowledge compounding, difficult conversations, and senior IC or manager choice, anchored in a concrete field decision in the selected field context.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 7.6.
• Prepare a weak and strong practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions artifact for 7.7.
• Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

Suggested flow

1. 5 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
2. 8 min - model the core concept or move
3. 18 min - learner artifact production or simulation
4. 9 min - critique against the evidence standard
5. 5 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

• Use practice cadence to reveal whether standards are actually maintained.
• Ask learners to answer: How does this learner multiply the capability of other FDEs without lowering standards?
• Model the concept with a concrete operational example, then ask learners to apply it to a new scenario.

Evidence to collect

• Leadership artifact defines observable behavior, feedback loop, owner, and follow-up cadence.
• Hiring or coaching rubric uses evidence and bias controls.
• Practice cadence protects eval hygiene and knowledge reuse.
• Difficult conversation script states decision, risk, empathy, and next step.

Formative check

What is the wrong reason to take the manager fork?

Reject or remediate

• Reject vague coaching encouragement without artifact-level feedback.
• Reject hiring criteria based only on tool familiarity.
• Reject practice plans that rely on the senior FDE personally fixing every issue.

Rubric focus

• Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
• Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
• Risks and limits are explicit.
• Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

• Have the learner rewrite feedback around behavior, artifact, and next action.
• Add one signal and one anti-signal to the rubric.
• Rehearse the difficult sentence out loud before revising the script.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions through the course lens of coaching, hiring, practice operating rhythm, knowledge compounding, difficult conversations, and senior IC or manager choice, anchored in a concrete field decision in the selected field context.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 7.1–7.7.
• Prepare a weak and strong practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions artifact for 7.8.
• Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

Suggested flow

1. 18 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
2. 27 min - model the core concept or move
3. 60 min - learner artifact production or simulation
4. 30 min - critique against the evidence standard
5. 15 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

• Make learners rehearse exact language for sponsor pushback and scope creep.
• Ask learners to answer: How does this learner multiply the capability of other FDEs without lowering standards?
• Reserve most time for build, critique, revision, and final defense.

Evidence to collect

• Leadership artifact defines observable behavior, feedback loop, owner, and follow-up cadence.
• Hiring or coaching rubric uses evidence and bias controls.
• Practice cadence protects eval hygiene and knowledge reuse.
• Difficult conversation script states decision, risk, empathy, and next step.

Formative check

What single section, when missing from an FDE practice playbook, predicts failure?

Reject or remediate

• Reject vague coaching encouragement without artifact-level feedback.
• Reject hiring criteria based only on tool familiarity.
• Reject practice plans that rely on the senior FDE personally fixing every issue.

Rubric focus

• Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
• Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
• Risks and limits are explicit.
• Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the practice leadership, coaching, hiring signals, cadence, and difficult decisions tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

• Have the learner rewrite feedback around behavior, artifact, and next action.
• Add one signal and one anti-signal to the rubric.
• Rehearse the difficult sentence out loud before revising the script.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.