The 1:1 tracking spreadsheet becomes Nathans choice - suggest, do not mandate - but whatever replaces it must be measurable and must never go to HR

July 30, 2026 at 10:41 PMoperationalmedium

Situation

Nathan asked whether Peter still wants his direct reports using the individual 1:1 tracking spreadsheets, noting he is not leveraging them much right now. Peter released the mechanism and held the outcome: Look, I find them useful. I am confident at this point that I have spent enough time going over them with you. I am happy transitioning more to you decide if they are useful. My answer is I suggest yes, but I do not mandate yes. And if you have a better way, that is super fine. Two constraints attached. First, if Nathan builds a different method, that method is what he presents at the Tuesday engineering sessions - this is how I am managing my team - with Wolfords different approach as the contrast case. Second, the hard requirement: I just want to make sure there is something there that is measurable, that is driving conversations about whether people are doing what you want, and that there is some sort of a record produced as part of it that does not go to HR so that it is open and honest and unpolluted. Peter also said he will keep pulling them out from time to time and is moving his own cadence with Nathan from monthly to roughly quarterly. He gave Steve Wallace the same latitude the same day: what I care is that there is something documented between you and employees that you can point to, whether it is the spreadsheets or not is not the important point for me.

Reasoning

The spreadsheet was a scaffold, and Peter judged it has done its job with Nathan - enough shared passes that they now know how each other thinks about the team. Holding the form after that point costs compliance overhead without adding information. What he will not release is the two properties the scaffold existed to produce: a measurable artifact that drives the conversation, and deliberate separation from HR so the record stays candid. He also converted the release into a contribution - if Nathan invents something better, it becomes teaching material for the rest of engineering rather than a private practice.

Additional Context

Peter told Nathan the biggest place he wants his focus is hiring, team management and team structure, which is part of why he is willing to hand back a process that competes for that attention. Same session in which Nathan said he plans to put metrics in front of his team that they can game, and Peter answered that a team gaming metrics is eminently manageable.

Observed Evidence

Direct quotes from two separate 1:1s the same day making the identical move - form released, outcome held. The I suggest yes but I do not mandate yes line is verbatim.

Matching Patterns

48%
Purpose Is the Decision Procedure(1 keyword match, involves Nathan Blackham, same category (operational), answered do we still use the spreadsheet by naming what the spreadsheet is for)
38%
Demonstrate the Standard, Then Collect It(involves Nathan Blackham, same category (operational), a better method becomes Tuesday teaching material rather than a private practice)

Confidence Breakdown

32/35
Evidence
26/30
Pattern
19/20
Source
13/15
Corroboration

Reasoning Depth Analysis

Org Signal:Peters processes are scaffolds with an exit condition, not permanent compliance. Once a manager demonstrates they hold the underlying discipline, the specific form is theirs. The HR carve-out signals that Peter is deliberately protecting a space where managers can write down honest assessments without them becoming personnel-file evidence.
Who Affected:Steve Wallace, given the same latitude the same day. Wolford, whose different approach becomes the contrast case. Nathans directs, whose 1:1 record stays out of HR by design. Every other direct report who will hear the Tuesday presentations and calibrate.
Precedent:Sets the graduation rule - a mandated process becomes optional once the manager has shown they carry its intent. Also establishes measurable plus not-in-HR as the two non-negotiable properties of any team management record in engineering.
Consequences:Real but soft. Nathan is free to drop the spreadsheet, and Peter said he will still surface them occasionally. The genuinely binding part is the requirement that a measurable non-HR record exist in some form.
Timing:Now because Nathan raised it himself and had already stopped using them - Peter chose to formalize the drift as a deliberate release rather than let non-compliance sit, and because Nathans attention is being pointed at hiring and team structure instead.

Source

reflection

AI Confidence

90%

Related Context

🎥
Nathan <> Peter Weekly 1:1

fathom

My answer is I suggest yes, but I do not mandate yes. I just want to make sure there is something there that is measurable, that is driving conversations about whether people are doing what you want, and that there is some sort of a record produced as part of it that does not go to HR so that it is open and honest and unpolluted.

🎥
Steve <> Peter Weekly 1:1

fathom

When I first started I gave you guys the simple spreadsheets that I have used for a while. Maybe you are still using those, maybe you are not. I do not really care. What I care is that there is something that is documented between you and employees that you can point to.

Outcome

Held on both halves. Peter treated the candidate metrics document as Nathan choice to accept or reject, and the measurable-outcome requirement survived as a live metric set Nathan owns.

Rating: 4/5

Decision ID: 0f9bb354-099f-41c6-b967-3d3aa7a15cb0