Founders and CEOs of scaling companies, typically when founder-led operations begin to strain and leadership infrastructure has not kept pace.

This often starts showing up around €2–5M in revenue and accelerates through €10–50M, though stage matters less than the pattern.

Common signals include decisions bottlenecking at the top, unclear ownership across teams, board materials created at the last minute, and strategic work repeatedly pushed aside for firefighting.

Sector matters less than complexity, pace, and leadership load.

Once scope is agreed and an engagement letter is signed, a kick-off session is typically scheduled within two to three weeks.

The conversation leading up to that often takes longer, and that is completely normal. Founders usually need time to align internally, pressure-test what they actually need, or simply sit with the decision.

The first priority is understanding how things actually operate before suggesting how they should change.

Three models, depending on what the situation needs.

Focus Sprint runs two to eight weeks and covers one defined system area such as decision frameworks, board operations, communications infrastructure, or workflow redesign. This is often the starting point and the most flexible way to work together.

Fractional Chief of Staff provides ongoing embedded support, typically two to three days per week. It delivers immediate capacity relief while leadership systems are built in parallel.

CEO Office Build runs three to six months and covers full leadership infrastructure design and implementation, from diagnostic through to handover. Availability for these is usually planned several months ahead.

Leadership bottlenecks rarely require a full-time hire immediately. What they need is senior, embedded attention while systems are built.

The fractional model allows work to start quickly, absorb real execution load, and scale up or down as infrastructure stabilises.

The goal is not ongoing presence. It is to build systems that hold without me.

That is the most common starting point.

Focus Sprints often act as a bridge. They stabilise one critical system, allow you to see how the work lands, and make it easier to decide what level of support makes sense next.

Many fractional partnerships have started this way.

All work is embedded and collaborative. The goal is never to come in as an outside force with a predetermined answer. It is to work alongside the team, understand how things actually move, and build from there.

Systems are designed within your existing structures, not layered on top. The people already doing the work are part of shaping what replaces or improves it. That is why it takes hold and why it sustains.

Very.

This is not advisory-only work. I take ownership of cross-functional initiatives, carry decisions that would otherwise escalate to the CEO, and stay in the system until it holds.

I sit in leadership meetings, see where decisions stall, and adjust the work based on what is actually happening rather than what was assumed at the start.

Design and execution happen together. That is why the systems stick.

Success metrics are defined at the start of each engagement based on what matters most.

Examples include reducing decision cycle time from weeks to days, turning board preparation into a structured process instead of dozens of last-minute hours, reclaiming strategic time for the CEO, and stabilising leadership rhythm so priorities stop drifting.

Progress is tracked throughout and reviewed at agreed milestones.

Engagements are priced as fixed-fee packages or monthly retainers, with scope agreed in advance.

Pricing is discussed once context and scope are clear. The initial conversation is the right place to start.

It depends on the problem.

Some teams work together for a single sprint or a defined build. Others stay in fractional partnerships for six to twelve months while systems mature and leadership capacity stabilises.

The goal is never dependency. The goal is to build systems that hold without ongoing support.

Berlin, with a digital-first model.

Most work is delivered remotely or hybrid. On-site sessions are included where they add real value such as leadership diagnostics, workshops, or critical moments in an engagement.

All engagements operate under a consultancy agreement with strict confidentiality and intellectual property terms.

Work can proceed under your organisation’s contract or one provided by TMR & Co., depending on preference.

The work is led by me.

When specialist expertise is needed such as AI tooling, executive coaching, or deep communications work, trusted specialists are brought in as required.

You get the capability without carrying permanent overhead.

Yes, and it is some of the highest-leverage work I do.

Most EA functions are designed around task management and calendar coordination. That is not what a leadership team at scale actually needs. When an EA operates with shared context, clear decision flow, and a real understanding of how the organisation works, they become a force multiplier. Not just for the executive they support, but for the leadership team as a whole.

The work focuses on how EAs handle information, prioritise competing demands, support decision-making, and communicate on behalf of leadership. The goal is an EA who can move with judgement rather than waiting for instruction.

AI has changed what executive operations needs to do, not by replacing the work, but by shifting where human judgement is actually required. Most CEO Offices are still running coordination, communication, and information management the way they always have. That is where the load sits. And that is where AI agents can genuinely help, if the underlying system is sound. I build these agents myself, without engineering support, to solve specific coordination and visibility problems in executive operations.

In practice that means reducing manual coordination in planning cycles and board preparation, improving how decisions are communicated and tracked across the organisation, making documentation and handovers part of how the system runs rather than something that happens at the end, and surfacing what matters to leaders without adding noise.

But agents only work once the system underneath is clear. If ownership is blurred, decision rights are broken, or communication has no structure, AI will not fix that. It will simply move faster through a broken system and make the gaps more visible.

Structure comes first. Automation supports it where useful.

The goal is less coordination overhead at the leadership level, fewer dropped threads, and more capacity for the work only the CEO can do.