What moves, and what does not.
What the system takes over
- Holding everything you have noticed about your team in one private record you own: what was said, what was agreed, what is still open
- Making sure every conversation starts where the last one ended, rather than with both people trying to remember
- Turning what you observed into feedback specific enough to land: the situation, what the person did, what effect it had
- Keeping track of what you delegated and what became of it
- Showing you where your time actually goes, against where you believe it goes
- Assembling a year of your own observations when a review comes round, instead of reconstructing it in November
- Writing down how the team actually works, so it survives the next person who joins
What stays with you
- The assessment of a person
- What is really going on with someone
- Who gets promoted, who gets the hard conversation
- The relationship, which is the whole job
What we build
The person record
One private file per team member, held by you: what they said they would do, what happened, and your own dated observations. Ninety seconds of dictation after each one-to-one. It is the entire system, and it changes the quality of your management more than anything else we build, because specificity is the difference between feedback that lands and feedback that does not.
Every conversation starts where the last one ended
Before each one-to-one: last time’s agreements, their status, what is still open, what you said you would follow up on. Thirty seconds of reading replaces four minutes of remembering badly, and the person across the table can tell which one happened.
The feedback drafter
You write “Tuesday, the deploy, handled it well.” It returns one specific paragraph — the situation, what the person did, what effect it had — built from that note and nothing else. You edit it and deliver it in person.
Where your time actually went
Once a month, the difference between where you believe your week goes and where it went. Both leaders were shocked. One discovered that 8% of their time went to their team and 44% to meetings they had never once questioned attending.
The review assembler
At review time, the year’s notes per person, organised. Two weekends become an afternoon, and the reviews are far more specific because they are built from notes written at the time rather than from what you happen to remember.
Where it stops
No assessment of a person is ever generated, and nobody is measured by the tool.
Read more
It never rates, never ranks, never predicts who might leave, never suggests who is underperforming, never writes the conclusion of a review. A performance judgement produced by software and signed by a manager is a lie that somebody’s career is then built on.
It also never reaches into anyone’s work. No counting of code changes, no tickets per person, no message analysis, no activity monitoring. Both leaders had access to tools that would do this, and we recommended neither. Surveillance changes what a team tells you long before it changes what they do, and then you are blind in a way you cannot detect. The person records are your own notes about employees, so DSGVO rights apply, including the right of access — write nothing you would not show the person.
How you see it working
One-to-ones that begin with a follow-up rather than a blank: from occasional to standard. Time spent on review season. The share of your week actually spent with the team. And whether feedback got specific, which the team notices before you do.
What it asks of you, and when we say no.
What it asks of you
Ninety seconds of dictation after every conversation.
When we say no
When a leader wants visibility into what their team is doing all day. That is a trust problem, and tooling makes it worse. We say so, and we have had that conversation both times.
What clients say
I was promoted for being good at a job I no longer do and nobody trained me for this one. Ninety seconds of dictation after every 1:1 and now each conversation starts with “last time you said X, how did that go” instead of me silently trying to remember. My team noticed before I did. Review season went from two weekends to an afternoon and the reviews are far more specific, because they are built from notes I wrote at the time rather than from what I can recall in November.
The calendar audit was unpleasant. Eight per cent of my time went to my team and forty-four per cent to meetings I had never once questioned attending. I asked whether we could add visibility into what people were actually working on and he said no, and told me it was a trust problem that tooling would make worse. That was not what I wanted to hear and it was the most useful thing anyone said to me that year.
Tell us what you are dealing with.
Thirty minutes, free, no preparation. We tell you honestly where AI could change something for you, and where it would not.