Back to the on-screen lesson ·
A people decision takes the smallest step the role's evidence supports, agreed with the person, checked against the local rules where they apply, and reviewed on a set date.
Paper packet. Every task here also exists on screen, where it is checked automatically; answers written on paper are not assessed by Nydus. When you are back at a device, enter your answers there.
You will choose a proportionate next step from a role's evidence, match situations to the step their evidence supports, order a people decision from evidence to review, and pick out what makes a decision bounded and fair.
Every tool in the people unit produces evidence: the written role, the measure and its trend, the training record, the feedback notes, the review. A people decision is where that evidence is used — and where it is most tempting to ignore it.
| Term | What it means |
|---|---|
| People decision | A change to a person's work: hours, role, pay, support, or a formal step. |
| Proportionate | The smallest step the evidence supports. |
| Bounded | With a clear scope, agreed where possible, rules checked, and a review date. |
| Trial | A change made for a set period before it becomes permanent. |
| Review date | The day the decision is read against its evidence again. |
| Formal process | The steps the local rules set for a serious performance problem. |
Owners tend to make people decisions in two extremes: nothing, until a problem boils over, and then something sweeping. The evidence usually supports something in between.
Northside Repairs' second mechanic is at 75 percent on time against a 90 percent target. The review found he was never trained on the new hydraulic brakes, which are a third of the jobs. The evidence points to a support need, and the proportionate step is training with checks — not ending his employment, not cutting his hours, and not doing nothing. A review date in a month shows whether it worked.
The same rule works in the other direction. A helper on target all year who asks for more responsibility is supported by the evidence — so offer a trial of the new tasks with a review date, rather than a permanent change on day one. And where the step touches hours, pay, the contract or safety-critical work, the local rules apply to it. Employment rules — pay, leave, contracts, working time, safety, ending employment — are set where the business operates and change over time. Look up the current rule from an official source for your own jurisdiction, and note the source and the date you checked it.
Another way: table
Evidence, and the step it supports.
| Evidence | Proportionate step |
|---|---|
| Missed training explains a slip | Train, with checks; review in a month |
| On target, wants more | Trial the new tasks; review on a date |
| On target all year | Say so specifically |
| Serious failure after recorded support | Formal process, following local rules |
Another way: steps
Look at what this decision stands on. The written role says what the job is. The measure and its trend say how it is going. The training record says what the person has been shown. The feedback notes say what they have been told. The review says whether a gap is a support need or a process need. Without those, a people decision is a feeling; with them, it is a judgment anyone could follow.
Gather the evidence. The role's measure over a period long enough to show a trend, the training record and the dated feedback notes.
Talk with the person. They often know what got in the way, or what they would like to take on next.
Name the need. Support, process, recognition, growth, or — only after recorded support — a formal step.
Choose the smallest step that meets it. Training before a formal step; a trial before a permanent change.
Check the rules. If the step touches hours, pay, the contract or safety-critical work, look up the requirements where the business operates.
Agree it, write it down, set the date. Changed terms go in writing; the review date goes on the calendar.
Check the work. Could someone else read the evidence and reach the same step? Is there a smaller step that would meet the need? Is the review date set, and does it name the measure to be read?
Grounding the decision in evidence is needed because people decisions are where feelings run strongest. A decision on the record is fairer to the person and easier to explain to the rest of the team.
Choosing the smallest step is allowed, and usually wise, because small steps can be undone or enlarged cheaply. Training that fails can be followed by more support or a formal step; an ending cannot be taken back.
Checking the rules is needed because changes to hours, pay and duties can be governed by law: overtime once hours pass a threshold, certification for some machines, notice for some changes. Each varies by state and sometimes by city.
Setting a review date is needed because a decision is a prediction: this step should move this measure. The review reads whether it did.
Many people decisions are good news: more hours, new tasks, a step up to team leader. They need the same care. A trial with a review date lets both sides find out whether the new work suits, without a promise that is hard to take back. Written terms protect the person, who knows what was agreed, and the business, which knows what it committed to.
Growth decisions also have a cost to check: added hours at the person's rate, and whether more hours cross a threshold, such as overtime rules or eligibility for benefits, that changes the cost or the obligations.
Proportionate does not only mean 'not too harsh'. It also means 'not too little'. Doing nothing when the evidence shows a problem is unfair to the person, who never gets the support they need, and to the team, who carry the gap. Ignoring a request for more responsibility from someone on target all year loses a person ready to grow. The evidence sets the size of the step, in whichever direction it points. Before settling on a step, ask two questions of it: is there a smaller step that would meet the need, and is there a reason to think this step is too small to make any difference at all? A step that passes both is the right size.
At the review date, read the measure the step was meant to move. If it moved, keep the step, or make the trial permanent in writing. If it moved partly, ask what else got in the way and consider one more small step. If it did not move, the need was probably something else: go back to the evidence and the conversation, not straight to a bigger step. A people decision reviewed on time can be adjusted while it is still small; one that is forgotten tends to come back as a much bigger problem.
The conversation is not a formality before the decision; it is part of the evidence. Share the measure and the record, and ask what the person sees in them. Someone slower since a menu change may say the new dishes need a pan the kitchen has only one of: a process need, not a training one. Someone asking for more responsibility may want different work, not more hours. Listen first, then propose the step, and ask whether it seems fair. A step the person helped shape is one they will work to make succeed, and a disagreement aired now is far easier to resolve than one discovered at the review.
Every people decision deserves a short written note: the evidence, the need it pointed to, the step, any changed terms, the rules checked, and the review date with the measure to be read. Give the person a copy when the terms change. The note does three jobs. It makes the agreement clear, so nobody remembers it differently in two months. It lets the review start from what was actually decided. And over time it shows that the business treats people the same way from the same kinds of evidence, which is what fairness looks like on paper.
Every people decision is watched by the rest of the team, who read from it how they will be treated. Consistent decisions, made the same way from the same kinds of evidence, tell them that effort and results count, and that a problem will be met with support first. Inconsistent ones, such as a favorite given a trial and another person refused without reason, cost more in trust than any single decision is worth, and that trust is slow to rebuild once it is lost.
A small coffee roaster in Nashville had a packing assistant who, over a year, kept order accuracy above 99 percent and began suggesting fixes to the shipping routine. When the owner's roaster retired, the assistant asked to learn roasting. The owner's first instinct was to say yes on the spot and move her to 40 hours as head roaster.
Instead the owner gathered the evidence: the accuracy record, the dated notes of her suggestions, and the fact that roasting needs skills she had never practiced, including safe operation of a gas-fired machine. They agreed an eight-week trial: three roasting shifts a week alongside the retiring roaster, her hours rising from 28 to 36. The owner checked Tennessee's rules and the business's insurance requirements for the roaster, and put the new hours, rate and trial in writing.
At the eight-week review they read two measures: batches within the target roast profile, 46 of 50, and customer complaints about roast, none. The trial became permanent, with a written role and a further review in six months. The packing role was filled by a new hire trained against the standard work she had helped write.
Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, most hourly employees must be paid overtime for hours over 40 in a workweek, and some states add daily limits. A decision that adds hours should check both before it is agreed.
Wait until it boils over, then act decisively. Small, early steps prevent big ones.
A sweeping change shows leadership. The smallest step the evidence supports shows judgment.
Good news needs no decision. Recognizing good work, specifically, is a decision.
Once decided, it's done. A review date is part of the decision.
More hours only affect the pay bill. They can cross thresholds the local rules set.
Read the measure.
$75 \text{ percent on time; target } 90$
Two months.
Find the need.
$\text{never trained on hydraulic brakes}$
A third of the jobs.
Choose the smallest step.
$\text{training with checks}$
A support need.
Cost the training.
$6 \times 25 + 200 = 350 \text{ dollars}$
His hours away from the bench at his rate, plus the trainer's fee.
Set the review.
$\text{read the on-time rate in a month}$
The same measure.
Gather the evidence.
$95 \text{ percent first-time passes}$
The role's measure.
Add the record.
$\text{has trained two new cleaners}$
From the training record.
Talk with her.
$\text{she wants the role}$
Agreed.
Check the rules.
$\text{pay and hours changes; in writing}$
Where the business operates.
Bound the step.
$\text{a six-week trial}$
With the written role.
Set the review.
$\text{together at six weeks}$
Then decide together whether the role becomes permanent.
Gather the evidence.
$\text{on target a year; asks for more}$
Growth.
Choose the step.
$\text{trial: buying and pricing}$
New responsibilities.
Add the hours.
$10 + 4 = 14 \text{ hours a week}$
Current plus added.
Find the weekly pay.
$14 \times 18 = 252 \text{ dollars}$
Fourteen hours at eighteen dollars, before any deductions are taken.
Find the rise.
$4 \times 18 = 72 \text{ dollars}$
The cost of the step.
Check the rules.
$\text{hours thresholds; written terms}$
Before starting.
Set the review.
$\text{in eight weeks: buying costs, pricing errors}$
Named measures.
Read what the evidence points to.
$\text{plating slower since an untrained new menu}$
A support need.
Choose the step.
$\text{training on the new dishes, with checks}$
At the pass.
Bound it with a review.
Northside Repairs' second mechanic has had bikes ready on time $78$ percent of the time for two months, against a $91$ percent target. The review found he has never been trained on the new hydraulic brakes, which make up a third of the jobs. What is the proportionate next step?
Complete the worked solution: Monica's Saturday helper works $12$ hours a week at $20$ dollars an hour. A trial of new responsibilities adds $3$ hours a week at the same rate. Find the hours a week during the trial, the weekly pay before deductions, and how much the weekly pay rises.
Find the hours during the trial.
$(\text{current hours}) + (\text{added hours}) =$ t
Into the written terms.
Find the weekly pay.
$(\text{trial hours}) \times (\text{rate}) =$ w
Dollars before deductions.
Find the rise in pay.
$(\text{added hours}) \times (\text{rate}) =$ d
The cost of the step.
Say what is checked before it starts.
$\text{the local rules on hours and pay}$
And a review date.
Match each situation at the five businesses to the step its evidence supports.
| Offer a trial of the new tasks, with a review date | Train on the new work, with checks | Say specifically what is going well | Begin the formal process, following the local rules | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| On target, asks for more responsibility, and a fitting role is open | ||||
| Slower since a new menu nobody trained them on | ||||
| On target all year | ||||
| Repeated serious failure after recorded training, feedback and support |
Maya is deciding whether to give her assistant more hours and the glazing work. Put her steps in order.
Number the steps in order (write the number in the box):
Notes on Bright Home Cleaning's decision to make a cleaner the team leader. Mark every note that makes the decision bounded and fair.
This task has no paper form; do it on a device.
Northside Repairs books hydraulic brake training for its second mechanic: $8$ hours away from the bench at his rate of $24$ dollars an hour, and a trainer's fee of $187$ dollars. What does the training cost in all, in dollars? Fill in each figure on the sheet.
| Amount | |
|---|---|
| Cost of his time, dollars | |
| Total cost of the training, dollars |
A surf shop in San Diego trials its weekend assistant on rental check-out for four weeks, with a target of no more than $4$ percent of rentals checked out with an error. At the review, the log shows $10$ errors in $200$ rentals. What was the error rate, in percent?
Answer:
A garden center's weekend assistant, on target for a year, asks to move to $4$ weekday shifts as well. The weekday work includes operating a forklift. What is the right next step?
Lesson test: one question per skill, one attempt each, no hints. Your answers are checked when you submit.
Monica's Saturday helper works $10$ hours a week. The trial of new responsibilities adds buying at the wholesale market ($6$ hours) and pricing the stall ($2$ hours). Complete the sentence.
During the trial the helper will work t hours a week.
You can make a people decision that is grounded in evidence, proportionate and fair, and set it up to be reviewed. Tell someone why a review date is part of the decision. This is the end of the course: the next, Strategy, growth and resilience, asks where the business should go from here.
20. Your turn: Neighborhood Kitchen's assistant, step 3
$\text{read plating time in two weeks}$
The same measure.