Blog

When a fractional digital leader is the right answer

---

When technology now shapes decisions across the organisation, nobody senior owns it, suppliers give confident and contradictory advice, and the organisation is too small to employ a digital director. It is the wrong answer if you need someone to build things, if you face one discrete decision, if there is enough work for a full-time hire, or if the leadership team will not give the role real authority. A good arrangement should become gradually less necessary as the organisation's own capability grows.

What are the options when nobody senior owns technology?

Four, and each is right some of the time. The position is a familiar one: technology has become important enough to shape the whole organisation, the finance director has inherited it because the systems have invoices attached, suppliers disagree, and the organisation is nowhere near the size where a digital director makes sense.

Employ someone. Right if there is enough work to fill the role and budget to attract somebody good. A genuinely experienced digital director costs six figures plus, and organisations at this stage often need that judgement two days a month rather than twenty. You also have to know enough to hire well, which is circular.

Engage a consultancy. Buys serious capability and structure, along with a methodology, a team that needs to stay deployed, and a commercial relationship that tends to expand. It works well for large defined programmes and less well when what is needed is continuous judgement.

Rely on your agency. Common, cheap in the short run, and structurally compromised. An agency is a supplier, and asking a supplier to lead your strategy means asking it to scrutinise its own work.

Bring in a fractional leader. Senior judgement part time, inside the leadership team rather than outside it.

Anybody who tells you their option wins every row is selling.

What signals point to a fractional leader?

Several of these at once. There is no CIO, chief digital officer or equivalent, and no realistic prospect of one in the next two years. Technology spend has grown to the point where nobody can produce a single list of what it is and what each part does, which is a more reliable signal than any turnover threshold. Suppliers recommend different things and nobody internally can adjudicate, which is the clearest signal of all, because no amount of diagnosis solves it: it needs somebody with authority on your side of the table.

Projects keep starting and not landing, as a pattern rather than a single failure. Technology decisions get made without a technology voice in the room, often at the end of the meeting and quickly, because nobody wants to admit they are unsure. And somebody capable is holding it together informally alongside their actual job, which is not sustainable, and in my experience it usually surfaces when that person hands in their notice.

When is fractional leadership the wrong answer?

When what you need is hands-on delivery, a single decision, a full-time person, or a role the leadership team will not give authority to.

Hands-on delivery. Fractional leadership is direction, oversight and decision-making; it does not build things. If you need the work done, employ a developer or engage a supplier and manage them properly.

One discrete decision. Choosing between two platforms, or working out whether your agency is delivering value, needs a defined piece of work with an answer at the end. Buying leadership for a single decision is expensive and slightly absurd.

Enough work for a full-time person. If you can fill and afford the role, employ someone. A fractional arrangement at four days a week is a badly structured job that costs more and gives less.

No real authority. A fractional leader with a seat at the table and the ability to direct suppliers is worth several times one who has to ask permission and gets overruled by whoever shouts loudest. If the executive team will not cede that ground, the arrangement will disappoint everybody, and this decides success more than anything else.

How is fractional leadership different from an advisory retainer?

An advisory retainer advises the leadership team: regular access to senior judgement, an independent view on decisions, someone to think out loud with, and no accountability for delivery or suppliers. Fractional leadership joins the leadership team: it owns the strategy, directs suppliers and carries responsibility for whether it works.

The second is more expensive and more valuable. Which one you need depends on whether you lack good advice or lack somebody to own the outcome, and those feel similar from inside while being different problems. Fractional digital leadership sets out how that role works, including how time is used; if your need is periodic advice, a strategic advisory retainer is likely to fit better.

What should be true six months in?

You know what you spend on technology and why. Somebody holds suppliers to account against outcomes rather than activity. The leadership team makes technology decisions with more confidence and less anxiety. And internal capability is growing rather than shrinking.

That last one matters most. A fractional leader who makes an organisation more dependent has failed, however good the individual decisions were. The point is to leave it more capable of running itself, so a good arrangement should become gradually less necessary. Anybody positioning it as permanent has an incentive worth looking at.

Related evidence: 140 websites, an in-house team at capacity, and a plan to hand it all over cleanly.. Earlier in this journey: How to run a law firm website project without wasting money.

Questions people ask

Why not let the agency lead digital strategy?

Because an agency is a supplier, and asking it to lead your strategy means asking it to scrutinise its own work, which is not a fair thing to ask of anybody.

How much of a senior digital leader's time does a smaller organisation need?

Often their judgement two days a month rather than twenty. At four days a week, a fractional arrangement becomes a badly structured job that costs more and gives less.

---

---