Michael
Feb 27, 2026 - Aug 24, 2026
8
Decisions
0
Active Todos
9
Patterns
Categories
Decisions (8)
Call the Core42 SOW1 won mid-call and forbid reopening anything that does not need reopening
During the Aug 24 Core42 and CIQ call, the customer side kept probing why the SOW does not cover the broader logical control set, and the CIQ team started engaging on where work splits under partials. Peter intervened twice in four minutes in the internal channel running alongside the call. First he reframed the confusion: I think we have lost track of the fact that ultimately there will be 2 SOWs. Then, once Alex Trafton had asked whether they could sign, he closed it: this is won, we should be careful not to re-open ANYTHING that does not need to be reopened. When Adam Jackson asked whether he could stop screen-sharing the HLD, Peter answered yes please stop sharing. The team changed behaviour inside the same minute - Bjorn said I will wrap, Brian Dawson said he would refrain from additional comment and let Bjorn and Adam land it, and Adam stopped sharing. The SOW1 final package went out to Core42 by email that afternoon.
Show Core42 the responsibility matrix filled in, not blanked - a first cut we are flexible on beats arriving with an empty working sheet
In the Core42 implementation-review pre-call on 2026-08-18, Michael Shinn was uneasy about showing his RACI/responsibility diagram because it assumed a much larger scope than Core42 might want, and offered to blank the boxes so the conversation could fill them in. Adam Jackson agreed and asked for the letters removed so CIQ would go in with no expectation. Peter challenged that directly and argued for leaving the chart filled in, framed as a first cut with an explicit statement that CIQ is flexible and not married to any of it. Adam conceded. On the following morning call the control matrix was in fact presented as a draft rather than as a blank working sheet.
Fork the Core42 engagement into two SOWs and let nothing delay the first - land the GB300 paper now, put the expanded security architecture in a separate SOW
On the Aug 19 CIQ-C42 Gap Analysis Part 2 call, Alex Trafton (Core42 CISO, roughly 10 weeks into the role) opened a scope far wider than the existing SOW - PAM consolidation across 4-plus tools, continuous vulnerability management, AI-specific security, physical and OT telemetry correlation, and future AMD MI350X deployments. The room read it as a much larger opportunity. Peter, facilitating, held the immediate GB300 deployment SOW as a closeable unit on its own and pushed the expanded scope into a separate second SOW. In the debrief immediately after the call he put it to Adam Jackson directly: But you agree, Adam, that for the next couple of days, it is just about getting that first SOW across. Adam: Yeah, 100 percent, Peter, 100 percent. Peter: I just do not want to put anything in the way of that. The same instinct had been set the night before in the pre-call, where the agreed play was to propose a second SOW or a simple addendum rather than expand the current paper.
Proactive Retention Check-ins After Ian's Departure
Initiated proactive 1:1 check-ins with key staff to gauge morale and prevent surprise resignations after Ian's departure. In the Sultan check-in, clarified Michael Young's departure was performance-based, explained no company-wide announcement (no teachable moment), and affirmed Sultan's role is safe. Goal: replace underperformers with A players.
Michael Young Termination Communication Approach
Peter set communication boundaries for Michael Young's termination: don't tell RESF people WHY, only 'we decided to part ways.' Advised Greg not to write specifics down. Declined to reply to Michael directly.
Sensitive Decision
Michael — Create-a-Hole Performance Framework
Coached Justin that the goal with Michael's performance management is to create a 'hole' for a high performer (like Ben), NOT to raise Michael to 'barely acceptable.' Framed 'barely acceptable' as worse than low performance — a barely-acceptable employee is hard to remove, creating permanent drag. Told Justin to leverage startup advantage (no HR handcuffs) to set higher bar, and shift mindset from 'fair for Michael' to 'fair for the team.'
Coached Justin on Michael performance management with net-good framework
In Justin 1:1, directed Justin to deliver direct performance feedback to Michael next week with Andrew-level success metrics. Framed PIP as high-bar exercise to confirm exit decision. Differentiated Michael (low performer, manage out) from Brady (high potential, wrong role, coach/move). Used weeding the garden and Expedition 33 metaphors to help Justin reconcile empathy with accountability.
Related Patterns (9)
Proactive Talent Pipeline Investment
Invest in building leadership bench and talent relationships before there is an urgent need. Use proven relationships from past experience to create optionality.
Accountability Follow-Through
When you issue a warning or mandate with stated consequences, you follow through. Warnings are not threats - they are commitments. The credibility of future accountability depends on following through now.
Executive Sponsorship for Strategic Partnerships
Strategic cross-company initiatives and major client partnerships require executive-level accountability to move at the right pace and ensure proper prioritization.
Small Circle for Sensitive Operations
When executing sensitive strategic operations, keep the circle of informed people as small as possible to prevent leaks that could accelerate hostile action or undermine the initiative.
Protect Engineering Capacity
When external demands threaten to overload engineering capacity, protect capacity by either requiring the demand to come with additional resources, or forcing hard prioritization choices upstream.
Three-Lever Talent Management
When pursuing a velocity or performance mandate, simultaneously operate on all three talent levers — upgrade (hire better), retain (protect key people), and exit (remove blockers) — rather than sequentially. This creates compounding momentum: exits free capacity for upgrades, retention preserves institutional knowledge during transitions, and upgrades raise the performance bar that justifies further exits.
Reclassify to Route - Decide Who Owns It, Then Give a Criterion Not a Verdict
When a question arrives at Peter framed in one domain, he often does not answer it in that framing. He reclassifies it into the domain that actually governs the outcome, which relocates ownership to whoever owns that lane, and then hands down a decision criterion rather than a verdict. The reclassification IS the decision - it determines who decides. He does this rather than adjudicating on the merits himself, even when he was explicitly cc-ed and even when a direct report challenges him on the substance.
Demonstrate the Standard, Then Collect It
When a new leadership expectation has to land across multiple orgs, Peter does not write a spec. He runs a live exemplar in public with the strongest performer first, says openly that the ordering was deliberate, keeps the form of the deliverable open so the ask stays about the thinking rather than the artifact, lets the delta be self-evident to the people who will have to close it, and then collects the same from everyone else on a named rotation. He prefers showing imperfect work now over polished work later.
Route Non-Differentiating FTE Classes to Partners
When CIQ would otherwise need to staff a function whose work does not differentiate the company — compliance bureaucracy, audit/cert paperwork, ongoing regulatory attestation, etc. — Peter routes the load to a partner who already owns adjacent capability rather than adding the FTE class internally. Org-shape decision dressed as a partnership decision.