Coach Mariah toward sharper, peer-level feedback posture — Reno trip offered

Situation

Following a heated DM disagreement about how to handle a senior IC's return-from-leave conversation, Peter offered Mariah an explicit choice: be treated the way Peter treats Bjorn and Greg (sharp, direct, unvarnished disagreement) or stay softer. Peter framed the conversation as investment, named that Mariah is undersized for where she could be ('I would like to see you pulled more into the core of things here'), and offered to be in Reno end of next week (Thursday) to discuss over lunch.

Reasoning

Peter sees Mariah as having room to operate at the C-suite tier and is offering it explicitly. Communication style at that tier doesn't pull punches; admission to the tier requires readiness for that. Investment framing is explicit: 'This conversation is me investing. Hopefully that's clear. I wouldn't be investing if I didn't think there was something there.' Bjorn's ongoing guidance to Mariah ('be careful with how you say things') is the conflicting signal — Peter is offering a different model and committing to argue it in person. The Reno trip is the operational mechanism: coaching this in writing is hard; in person it's possible.

Additional Context

Surfaced organically out of the Max return-conversation disagreement. Mariah explicitly named the dynamic mid-thread ('I haven't developed a thick enough skin to be the leader CIQ needs'). Mariah and Christina's good-cop/bad-cop framing came up — Mariah feels she has to be the bad cop while Christina is the relatable one. Peter pushing back that the filter/directness question depends on audience (company vs employee in private vs c-suite peers) and his focus is on the c-suite-peer tier.

Observed Evidence

Direct quotes from Peter across the DM. Persistent across multiple message exchanges. Investment framing made explicit. Operational mechanism (Reno Thursday) committed.

Matching Patterns

Confidence Breakdown

Reasoning Depth Analysis