👋 You’re a brilliant engineer.
You’ve mastered the code, earned respect, and now you’ve been promoted.

Suddenly, the job isn’t about solving technical problems.
It’s about leading humans.

That’s where many engineers struggle.

Meetings go quiet.
Decisions bottleneck.
Delegation feels awkward.
Imposter syndrome creeps in.

What made you successful - technical mastery - suddenly isn’t enough.

If you’re a CEO or CTO, you’ve seen this story play out:
Your rockstar IC gets promoted... and flounders.
You risk losing both a great engineer and your leadership pipeline.

👉 That’s why I created coded2lead — coaching for engineers making the IC → leader leap.

With 20+ years scaling teams and shipping software, I’ve lived both sides.

Today I help engineers:

•  Build trust
•  Read the room
•  Run meetings people actually speak in
•  Stop accidentally becoming bottlenecks

In other words:
I help engineers become trusted leaders.

✨ My approach blends systems thinking with emotional intelligence.
Leadership isn’t just what you say — it’s what you train every day.

If you or your engineers are navigating this transition, let’s talk.

📅 Book a coaching intro call: coded2lead.com

Robert Harris

I help software engineers grow their careers: from “stuck” to clear next steps, stronger CV, confident interviews, and promotion-ready communication.

I do this as a practitioner, not a theorist. My main role is Engineering & Delivery Manager in FinTech B2B: I lead cross-functional teams, hire engineers, run performance reviews, and build growth plans. That gives me a very practical view of what hiring managers and leaders actually look for.

How I can help:
🔹 CV / LinkedIn profile rewrite (clarity, positioning, results)
🔹 Mock interviews (technical + behavioral) + feedback you can apply immediately
🔹 Career strategy: roadmap for the next 3–6 months (skills, projects, visibility, negotiation)
🔹 Transition support: Engineer → Senior / Lead / Manager (communication and leadership skills)

My style: structured, direct, and supportive. You’ll leave with a plan and concrete actions, not motivational slogans.

If you’re preparing for a job change or a promotion - feel free to connect and message me what you’re aiming for.

Valerii Popov

When Growth Stalls

Recently, I ran a short poll
about a difficult leadership situation.

A performance review.
A strong employee.
Years in the same role,
but there’s no more growth in this position.

The question was simple and uncomfortable:
how do you talk about this
without breaking motivation or trust?

Here’s how the responses split.

🟦 38% - Discuss other paths
This option is often chosen by leaders
who don’t want the conversation to end in a dead end
and try to expand the frame beyond the current role.
It gives a sense of movement and respect,
even when vertical growth is no longer possible.
But there’s a risk.
If real alternatives don’t follow the words,
this conversation quickly turns into delayed disappointment.

🟨 33% - Be direct about the limit
Clearly naming the boundary creates clarity
and removes false hope,
which in itself can reduce tension.
But this approach requires maturity
from both the leader and the employee.
If honesty isn’t followed by support
or a next step,
motivation often drops.

🟩 29% - Add new responsibilities
Expanding responsibility looks like a compromise
between honesty and care.
Sometimes it truly works:
people grow horizontally
and feel trusted.
But without a link to future opportunities,
it quickly starts to feel like
“more work - without growth”.

🎯 Takeaway
The choice here is always a choice of consequences,
not just words.
What happens after the conversation
determines whether this moment becomes
an ending or a transition.

Which approach feels closest
to your real experience and why?
Curious to discuss 👇

📊 New Poll
I’ve launched a new vote:
You’re a top performer but passed over for promotion due to bias 👇
A tough topic and something almost every faces at some point.
https://lnkd.in/esMUKGPA

–––
🤝 The Human Side of Tech - a series on teams, leadership, and management in IT
–––
🔔 Follow Valerii Popov for practical insights on leadership & career growth.
♻️ Share to help others grow as leaders.
🤝 Your engagement matters, I always respond in return.

Career Mentor ◆ CV & Interview prep ◆ Engineering Manager (FinTech) ◆ 10+ yrs

The Internet Isn’t Always Wi-Fi
Sometimes, it’s just light.

And this isn’t futuristic speculation,
it’s already a working technology.

Researchers have demonstrated a system
where data is transmitted
through ordinary LED lights,
the same ones used in street lamps
and traffic lights.

From the outside, nothing looks unusual.
The lamp is just shining.

But at the same time,
it’s transmitting information,
through rapid changes in brightness
that the human eye can’t detect.

A receiver captures these fluctuations
and converts them into data.

In tests, it reached
around 3.5 Mbps
over a distance of several meters.

Which leads to the real question:
Where does this kind of internet actually make sense?

Not as a replacement for Wi-Fi on your phone.
But as an additional channel
for urban and transport infrastructure.

For example:
• traffic lights → vehicles
• street lamps → navigation and transport
• areas with congested radio spectrum

This isn’t a “Wi-Fi killer”.

It’s another layer of connectivity
that solves very specific problems better.

Technologies rarely replace each other.
More often, they stack.

And the advantage goes to those
who know how to choose
the right channel for the right context.

Would you trust your data to light?

–––
🔔 Follow Valerii Popov for clear takes on AI trends & industry news.
♻️ Share to keep your network updated.
🤝 Your engagement matters, I always respond in return.

AI is now citing AI-generated content.
And that makes source checking hygiene, not paranoia.

Here's the pattern:
You ask an LLM a niche question.
Not "What is HTTP" - something rare,
where good sources are scarce.

The answer sounds confident.
There's a link. Looks legit.

Problem: In these "data gaps",
models can pull from AI encyclopedias.
Recent example: ChatGPT citing Grokipedia,
an AI-generated encyclopedia.

Why this matters:
AI reads AI → retells AI → error becomes "source".
Next iteration, it looks even more credible.
The loop closes.

When did you last check the link,
not just the polished answer?

My rule for working with LLMs:
If the topic is:
→ Rare
→ Sensitive
→ Affects decisions/money/reputation

Then the answer isn't knowledge.
It's a hypothesis that needs validation.

What I check first:
✓ Who authored it (person/org/institution)
✓ Is there a primary source
✓ Does the text look "too smooth" without hard facts
✓ Are there independent confirmations

Bottom line:
LLMs accelerate thinking.
But responsibility for the truth is still on you.

Save this checklist for when you're working with AI
on anything that matters.
And drop your simplest "source test" in the comments,
curious what catches fake citations fastest for you.

–––
🔔 Follow Valerii Popov for clear takes on AI trends & industry news.
♻️ Share to keep your network updated.
🤝 Your engagement matters, I always respond in return.

Career Mentor ◆ CV & Interview prep ◆ LinkedIn Optimization ◆ Engineering Manager (FinTech) ◆ 10+ yrs

We usually start the year with goals

New plans.
New ambitions.
New roadmaps.

But today, I want to look
in the opposite direction.

At what we lost in 2025.

The products in this carousel
didn’t disappear by accident.
They didn’t fail overnight.

Most of them worked.
Some even defined an era.

But products don’t live in isolation.

They disappear when:
→ demand fades
→ user behavior shifts
→ stronger competitors emerge
→ or they get absorbed into larger ecosystems

Often, it’s not about bad technology.
It’s about timing.
Focus.
And relevance.

Looking at what we lose
often teaches us more
than celebrating what survives.

Which of these products
do you miss the most and why? 👇

–––
🛠️ Engineering Notes - about decisions, trade-offs, systems, and the thinking behind them.
–––
🔔 Follow Valerii Popov for deep dives into software architecture & engineering practices.
♻️ Share to spread better engineering practices.
🤝 Your engagement matters, I always respond in return.

9 Lost Products

Last week, I asked: How do you handle workload
fairness when transparency starts demotivating people?

Here's what the split revealed and why it matters:

🟨 46% chose "Reward extra load"
The majority instinct: recognize those carrying more.
𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬: When high performers feel seen,
not exploited. When rewards are meaningful,
not just "thank you" messages.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤: You create a two-tier system. Those who
can't carry extra feel like second-class contributors.

🟩 38% chose "Add task weights"
The engineering approach: make complexity visible.
𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬: When tasks genuinely vary in difficulty.
When you need objective data for capacity planning.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤: People optimize for points, not impact.
"I'll take three small tasks over one complex one."

🟦 15% chose "Set a minimum bar"
The least popular, but the most honest.
𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬: When you're okay with uneven
contribution above the bar.
When you'd rather have clarity than false equality.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤: High performers burn out
while others coast at "acceptable".

Here's the pattern I see:
Most of you lean toward rewarding effort.
Fewer want to measure it.
Almost no one wants to enforce a floor.

That gap matters.
Because rewarding without measurement
becomes subjective. And subjectivity kills
the fairness you're trying to build.

Real question: Can you reward extra load fairly
without knowing what "extra" actually means?
Or does one require the other?

Bookmark this if you're designing team systems.
You'll need to answer that question eventually.

📊 New Poll
I’ve launched a new vote:
Your manager comments on your relationship
after you set a boundary...
A tough topic and something almost every faces at some point.
https://lnkd.in/eF9iT_Pt

–––
🤝 The Human Side of Tech - a series on teams, leadership, and management in IT
–––
🔔 Follow Valerii Popov for practical insights on leadership & career growth.
♻️ Share to help others grow as leaders.
🤝 Your engagement matters, I always respond in return.

Sometimes the internet breaks,
not because someone hacked it.
But because one perfectly normal change
accidentally pressed an invisible button.

June 8, 2021.

People opened their usual sites - news, services, shops,
and saw the same thing everywhere: error.
Like, half the internet suddenly decided to stop working.

What happened?
Imagine a massive company that helps websites
load fast around the world,
like a network of distribution centers for web pages.

Most people don't know it exists.
But everyone uses it daily.

Weeks earlier, they made a routine improvement.
Standard work. Nothing urgent.
The problem: a bug slipped in with that improvement.
It didn't trigger immediately. It stayed dormant.

Then one customer did something routine:
changed their website settings.
Nothing strange. Nothing forbidden.
Just a normal update.

And that update turned out to be
the exact rare combination of conditions
that woke the sleeping bug.

Suddenly, a significant part of the network
started responding: "Can't process this."

Thousands of sites went down simultaneously.

The good part: the team quickly identified the issue
and rolled back the specific change that triggered it.
Within an hour, most of the internet was back.

Why this story matters beyond tech:
Complex systems don't break like a lightbulb.
They break like dominoes, through a chain of coincidences.

The most painful failures are often triggered
not by catastrophe, but by everyday, ordinary actions.

Reliability isn't about "never making mistakes".
It's about "noticing fast and recovering fast".

The systems you rely on daily - internet, supply chains.
Even your team workflows - all work the same way.

One invisible edge case.
One routine change.
One domino.

Have you seen this pattern somewhere outside tech?

–––
🛠️ Engineering Notes - about decisions, trade-offs, and the thinking behind them
–––
🔔 Follow Valerii Popov for real engineering decisions.
♻️ Share to spread better engineering practices.
🤝 Your engagement matters, I always respond in return.

When “Good Enough” Is No Longer Enough

I had a flight this week.
6 a.m. departure.
And not from my home city.

The only way to get there was by train,
so I arrived a day early
and stayed at a hotel.

I chose between several options.
➤ All decent.
➤ All well-reviewed.
➤ All “doing their job”.

In the end, I picked the hotel
that offered one extra thing:
an airport transfer.

Not luxury.
Not a wow-experience.

Just a simple solution
to one specific pain point:
getting to the airport early in the morning
without stress.

And that made the decision.

At some point,
doing the core job well is no longer enough.
Especially in mature markets,
where quality becomes a hygiene factor.

Then the winners aren’t those who do more.
They’re the ones who solve the customer’s context better.

That made me pause and ask myself:
in my work, my projects, my role -
what is the “airport transfer”
I offer people?

The answer feels simple:
value often isn’t in the core product,
but in small details
that reduce friction
and make decisions easier.

Sometimes, those details decide everything.

Have you noticed similar “small things”
that made you choose
one person, service, or company
over the others?

Curious to read your examples 👇

–––
🌿 Sunday Self-Reflection
–––
🔔 Follow Valerii Popov for reflections on leadership, learning & personal growth. 
♻️ Share to inspire thoughtful conversations.
🤝 Your engagement matters, I always respond in return.

Most management conflicts aren’t about facts.
They’re about the rules of the game
people believe they’re playing.

→ One leader says: “We need standards and order.”
→ Another: “We need speed and autonomy.”
→ A third: “We need to rebuild trust first.”

And here’s the trap:
all three can be rational at the same time,
because they’re optimizing for different value systems.

Spiral Dynamics gave me a clean way to see what’s underneath:
different “value operating systems” get triggered by context:
risk, uncertainty, complexity, cost of mistakes.

Once you see the OS, you stop trying to “explain better”
and start choosing the right tools and, more importantly,
the right sequence.

In this article, I share 5 practical ideas
+ one story from my own work: 
the moment KPIs, ownership, and harder prioritization
made delivery worse… 

If you lead teams or drive change, this will likely feel familiar.

What “game” is your org playing right now:
Blue, Orange, Green… and what’s the hidden cost?

–––
🤝 The Human Side of Tech - a series on teams, leadership, and management in IT
–––
🔔 Follow Valerii Popov for practical insights on leadership & career growth.
♻️ Share to help others grow as leaders.
🤝 Your engagement matters, I always respond in return.

TL;DR Spiral Dynamics isn’t about “who’s better”. It’s about which value operating system is currently driving decisions. In management, it works like

Open article: 5 Spiral Dynamics Ideas by Valerii Popov • 5 min read

Three hours in a café gave me more
than three hours of "productivity".
And that's not typical for me.

I'm usually the person who stays home.
Work. Projects.
Same context Monday through Friday.
Almost 24/7.

Today was different.

New people. A cafe.
Three hours of conversation.

At first, my brain was negotiating:
"Why? I could be moving a project forward."

Then something happened that you can't schedule.
I actually rested.
Not "took a break", I left my usual environment.
My head stopped spinning
the same thoughts on repeat.

I heard a few ideas about a future project of mine.
Not "advice". Just a different lens.
The kind you don't have
when you're buried in your own task list.

And most importantly:
I met someone I genuinely want to work with.
No immediate utility.
Just the feeling: this is someone worth building with.

Midway through, I caught myself asking:
Am I really saving time by always staying "in context"?
Or am I just avoiding new input?

Simple takeaway:
Sometimes the best step forward
looks like a step sideways.
Leave the house.
Sit with people.
Give life a chance to surprise you.

Curious about you:
What brings you clarity more often:
solitude or conversation?

For me, it's been solitude by default.
But today reminded me I might be overusing it.

P.S. If you're in the same pattern,
working from the same space, same routine,
try breaking it once this week. Even for an hour.

–––
🌿 Sunday Self-Reflection
–––
🔔 Follow Valerii Popov for reflections on leadership, learning & personal growth
♻️ Share to inspire thoughtful conversations.
🤝 Your engagement matters, I always respond in return.

GPT-5.2 got "smarter"... and worse at writing.
That's not a bug. It's a trade-off most people don't want to see.

At a recent Sam Altman said it directly:
GPT-5.2 regressed on writing quality.

Not by accident.

Because they deliberately
prioritized coding and reasoning,
and deprioritized everything else

His reason sounded very engineering-honest:
"Team bandwidth is limited."

Familiar scene:
You ship a new version.
One KPI goes up.
Another suddenly drops.
Users say: "It was better before."
And you realize:
yes, that's the price of the priority you chose.

Here's the management takeaway:
A model update ≠ "better at everything".

It's a redistribution of quality across dimensions.
If you're building processes on LLMs,
you need a plan for when:
→ Code improves, but writing degrades
→ Logic strengthens, but style breaks
→ Answers get more accurate, but readability drops

In the same session, Altman outlined ChatGPT's future:
• Memory and personalization as top priority
• Vision: "whole computer and the whole internet"
• Even "Sign in with ChatGPT" (login via ChatGPT)

The bet: the assistant becomes infrastructure.
Which means the cost of errors and trust goes up.

Bottom line:
A model isn't a feature.
It's a system component.
And its update should be treated 
like a platform release, not a "quality improvement".

Question for you:
Do you test new models by "general feel"?
Or do you already have a set of criteria
you can't afford to drop?

Drop your approach in the comments,
genuinely curious how teams
are handling this trade-off.

–––
🔔 Follow Valerii Popov for clear takes on AI trends & industry news.
♻️ Share to keep your network updated.
🤝 Your engagement matters, I always respond in return.

How do you know when to try again,
and when to accept "no" and move on?

This week, I found myself searching for that answer
in the most unexpected place - a bank office.

I needed to resolve a personal financial matter.
Went to a bank that was recommended to me.
Waited in line.
The manager listened, thought for a moment,
and said: "You'll need a guarantor." 

Conversation over.

Walking out, I felt that familiar weight:
"Maybe this just isn't possible?"

I was advised to try another bank.
I went, listened to their terms.
Something didn't add up.
The criteria didn't match what we needed.

And then - the moment of choice. 
Accept this "no" as final? Or try once more?

I returned to the first bank.
Different branch. Different manager.
Same request.

"This is doable. With the resources you have,
we can make this work."

I sat there thinking: 
same system, same situation, same me,
but two completely different answers.

The first "no" didn't mean "impossible".
It meant:
→ not with this person
→ not at this moment
→ not with this approach

Sometimes the solution isn't in changing the goal,
but in changing the angle.
→ In having a bit more patience.
→ In being willing to hear another perspective.
→ In understanding that the system is bigger
than any single person within it.

Think about it:
how many opportunities have you walked away
from after the first "no"? 
And how many of those could have become
a "yes" with a different approach?

–––
🌿 Sunday Self-Reflection
–––
🔔 Follow Valerii Popov for reflections on leadership, learning & personal growth
♻️ Share to inspire thoughtful conversations.
🤝 Your engagement matters, I always respond in return.

Last week I asked:
What do you do when your manager comments
on your relationship after you set a boundary?

🟢 70% → Set a clear boundary directly
🟢 26% → Stop sharing personal details
🟢 4% → Escalate to HR if it repeats

Here's what that split tells us,
and the exact language that works.

🟨 70% chose "Set a clear boundary directly"
The majority instinct: address it head-on.
This works when you say it calmly, not defensively.
𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲:
"I'd prefer we keep the focus on work logistics,
not my personal decisions.
Can we discuss coverage instead?"
Or simpler:
"That comment felt personal.
Let's stick to the work question,
how we handle weekend coverage."
𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬:
You're redirecting without attacking.
You're naming the line without making it a confrontation.

🟩 26% chose "Stop sharing personal details"
The protection approach: eliminate ammunition.
𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬:
Instead of:
"I promised my partner I won't work weekends."
Say: "I'm not available weekends going forward."
No explanation. No opening for commentary.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞-𝐨𝐟𝐟: You protect yourself,
but you also lose the chance to set a direct boundary.
The behavior might continue elsewhere.

🟦 4% chose "Escalate to HR"
The least popular, but sometimes necessary.
𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐭: Not first. But if the pattern repeats
after you've set a direct boundary,
document and escalate.
𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐇𝐑:
"I've set boundaries directly.
The comments about my personal life continue.
Here are the dates and examples."

💭 The pattern I see:
Most of you want to handle it in the room.
Few want to avoid or escalate.
That's healthy, but only 
if the direct boundary actually lands.

Save this if you're navigating boundary
violations at work.

And if you've used one of these approaches,
what actually happened?
Drop a comment.
Your real-world outcome helps others choose.

📊 New Poll
I’ve launched a new vote:
Your best employee no-calls/no-shows for a cause...
A tough topic and something almost every faces at some point.
https://lnkd.in/d4ewMm9X

–––
🤝 The Human Side of Tech - a series on teams, leadership, and management in IT
–––
🔔 Follow Valerii Popov for practical insights on leadership & career growth.
♻️ Share to help others grow as leaders.
🤝 Your engagement matters, I always respond in return.

Weekend work boundaries get messy fast.
Especially when your manager makes it personal.

You're in a meeting.
Weekend work comes up.
You say you won't do weekends this year.
You did it last year.

There's no extra pay, just shifting days.
You explain simply:
"I promised my partner I won't work weekends."
Your manager pauses.
Then asks:
"So… your partner is controlling?"

It's not the first time
they've commented on your personal life.
You never said anything that suggests control.
You just stated a boundary.

Now you're sitting with two problems:
→ How to keep your weekend boundary
→ How to stop your personal life becoming a topic at work

And one question:
Did I create this by oversharing?
Or is my manager crossing a line?

If you have dealt with something similar,
you are not alone.

🗓️ Your vote helps others facing the same
situation pick a safe, practical move.
In a week, I'll share the results
and what I learned from your responses.

–––
🤝 The Human Side of Tech - a series on teams, leadership, and management in IT
–––
🔔 Follow Valerii Popov for practical insights on leadership & career growth.
♻️ Share to help others grow as leaders.
🤝 Your engagement matters, I always respond in return.

Your manager comments on your relationship after you set a boundary. What do you do next?

The author can see how you vote. Learn more

Your best employee no-calls/no-shows for a protest.
And now you're the one on the spot.

You run a small team.
You've worked with this person for 5 years.
Reliable. High trust. High impact.

Yesterday, a nationwide strike came up in conversation.
They were evasive.
Half-joked: "Maybe I won't show up."
You didn't push.

Today: they don't show up.
No call. No text. Nothing.

You message them, worried:
"Are you okay? Hospital? Accident?"

They reply: "I'm fine."
So it's not an emergency.
It's a choice.

Here's what makes it harder:
The protest is about something
you personally disagree with too.

Operationally? It barely hurts you today.
Slow business. Minimal impact.

But there's still a line:
It wasn't "I'm taking the day off."
It was no-call/no-show.

And now you're deciding
what you're actually protecting:
→ The person? 
→ The process? 
→ The team's sense of fairness?

One question hits:
If you let this slide, what happens the next time
someone disappears for a reason you don't support?

🗓️ Your vote helps others facing the same
situation pick a safe, practical move.
In a week, I'll share the results
and what I learned from your responses.

–––
🤝 The Human Side of Tech - a series on teams, leadership, and management in IT
–––
🔔 Follow Valerii Popov for practical insights on leadership & career growth.
♻️ Share to help others grow as leaders.
🤝 Your engagement matters, I always respond in return.

Your best employee no-calls/no-shows for a cause. What do you do?

taplio

The Battle

Robert Harris

Valerii Popov

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreValerii Popov's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Robert Harris

Valerii Popov

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Valerii Popov's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreValerii Popov's LinkedIn Performance