The jump nobody explains.

Strong individual performance is necessary but not sufficient. The signals that usually matter more: whether you already informally coach or unblock peers, whether you can explain your own process clearly enough for someone else to repeat it, and whether you're motivated by team outcomes as much as your own number. If those aren't there yet, that's exactly what to build before the move, not after it.

Performing the job well and being ready to lead people who do the job are genuinely different skill sets. The clearest signal is whether you can turn your own instincts into something teachable: a process, a framework, a way of coaching, rather than just doing the work faster or better yourself.

The jump from team lead to VP or Head of typically requires strategic and cross-functional skills that managing your own team doesn't teach on its own: forecasting and board-level reporting, org design, hiring at scale, and influence across product, marketing, and finance rather than just your own function.

Yes, and it's one of the most consistent things people report at every one of these transitions. It's not usually a sign you're in the wrong role, it's the ordinary cost of doing something you haven't done before. The useful move is separating the feeling from the facts: naming exactly what skill or evidence is actually missing, versus what's just unfamiliarity.

Have a deliberate one-on-one reset conversation with each former peer early rather than letting the relationship redefine itself through silence. Be explicit about your decision-making style and standards instead of assuming it's understood. And resist the instinct to out-produce your own team to prove you deserve the promotion, your job changed from doing the work to making everyone else better at it.

My own background is GTM and revenue leadership, so that's where my examples and pattern-matching are deepest. But the core of this work, building a promotion case, learning to lead instead of just perform, managing former peers, closing the confidence gap, isn't specific to any one function. If you're facing the same jump in engineering, product, or elsewhere, it's still worth a conversation.

Start by mapping which of your existing skills genuinely transfer, communication, problem-solving, domain expertise, and which gaps are real and need to be closed before you're a credible candidate. Most career changers either undersell what already transfers or try to compete on GTM-specific experience they don't have yet. Both are fixable once they're named clearly.

It depends heavily on your background, but the common transferable skills are structured communication, handling objections or resistance, technical or domain fluency if you're coming from a specialist field, and any prior experience managing relationships or expectations. The gap is usually GTM-specific process and vocabulary, which is learnable faster than most career changers expect.

1:1 conversations focused on a specific, real situation: a promotion case you're building, a deal or team problem you're stuck on, or a move you're actively considering. It's practical and tied to your actual work, not a fixed curriculum.

Both exist. Some people need a single focused conversation before a decision or a negotiation. Others want an ongoing cadence through a longer transition. The free 15-minute call is there to figure out which one fits before committing to either.

Yes. Based in Prague, working remotely across Europe, primarily CEE, Germany, the Netherlands, and the Nordics, with sessions conducted in English.

It depends on the scope, a single session and an ongoing engagement are priced very differently. The most useful next step is a short call to figure out what you actually need before talking about cost.