Switch Instrument, Not Intensity

Description

Applies when a message, rule or ask has already failed through the channel Peter is currently using - repeated advocacy that has not landed, coaching that produced defensiveness rather than improvement, exhortation that did not change behaviour, or a rule that keeps losing case by case. His response is never to restate the same thing more forcefully. He changes the instrument and usually names the switch out loud. Mined from 7 independent observations between 2026-01-06 and 2026-08-21.

Typical Approach

Treat a track record of the informal channel failing as the trigger, not as a reason to try harder. Diagnose why the current instrument is unenforceable rather than re-asserting it - and if the rule was named after the wrong thing, rename it after the deficit it was actually pointing at. Then move to a different class of instrument: coaching to a contract or SLA, persuasion to structural authority, an exhortation to a demonstration the room watches happen, a behavioural ask to a role whose description makes the stance non-negotiable, a metrics lecture to asking the person who runs the org for the reasoning behind their own metric set. Name the switch as a switch so the change of instrument is itself legible. Concede the limit of your own knowledge inside the switch where it applies. Important refinement from 2026-08-11: when a message fails, the fix is usually demonstration rather than greater directness - a self-diagnosis of I was not clear enough has been wrong at least once.

Trigger Conditions