I Think We Missed a Step

This transcript has been edited lightly for readability while preserving the substance and sequence of the recorded discussion.

Narrator: This session examines a simulated workplace case created for discussion. The people, organizations, and identifying details are fictional.

An assisted-living residence employs resident-care assistants across three shifts. Monthly schedules are maintained in an official workforce portal. Supervisors also use a private group chat for shift swaps and late schedule changes.

Nia Brooks begins work as a resident-care assistant in April. She receives portal credentials during onboarding. The next day, an invitation to the private group chat is emailed to her. The link expires one week later without being activated. No record shows that anyone followed up or confirmed her access.

In June, evening supervisor Caleb Ross changes Nia's next shift from three in the afternoon to noon. He posts the change in the private group, where Nia is not a member, and updates the official portal approximately eighteen hours before the shift. Nia reports at three and receives an attendance warning.

Two weeks later, Caleb changes another of Nia's shifts from four in the afternoon to noon. He again posts in the group chat, then updates the portal approximately four hours before the new start time. No direct call or acknowledgment is recorded. Nia reports at four and receives a final written warning.

The employee handbook tells staff to review the portal before scheduled shifts, but it does not identify the private group as a required channel. Nia says onboarding presented the monthly portal schedule as final unless a supervisor contacted her directly. Caleb says employees understand that late changes appear in both places. The available onboarding checklist does not resolve what Nia was told, and no portal access record is available to show when she viewed either change.

Nia appeals the final warning to the residence administrator. The record establishes that both schedule changes appeared in the official portal before the affected shifts and that Nia did not receive the group-chat notices. It does not establish whether portal notifications were enabled, whether successful group access was anyone's assigned responsibility, or how similar notice failures have been handled for other employees.

What parts of Nia's final warning can the administrator responsibly sustain now, and what notice process must be established before further schedule changes or discipline?

Janellys: Okay, a couple things immediately jumped out. I took notes, um, as I was reading or, sorry, as I was listening to this, immediately after the first occurrence happened of the last minute change, why did that not prompt for the employee to be added to, to the group chat? Like, how did it go from her getting a link that expires? Okay, then a last minute changes, and then she doesn't show up, that should have been intervention should have happened right there. Like, how did it escalate to multiple times for Nia? That's immediately what jumped out.

Another thing that jumped out is if you're gonna have, um, a private group chat for last minute changes, that's not incorporated into the policy as official notification. Well, it's right there, like, it's not in the policy. How can you enforce a policy that does not exist? And if it, if it is official policy, why isn't it on the onboarding checklist to ensure that this is set up and the person and the, like, the new employees are properly added? So there's failures, you know, not just for Nia not being properly added, but as instances were coming up, why were they not addressed?

It seemed like the focus of Caleb was to, um, be punitive against Nia but not resolve the issue. That, that's what came out to me. And it's a monthly schedule. You're doing schedules by the month, but you're giving someone an, an eighteen-hour heads up for a schedule change. Like what time, what time is this happening? Like we don't know what shift she works. We don't know if it's like a daytime shift, overnight shift, you know, so 18 hours ahead of time. Yeah, but at what time and like at what part of Nia's life because, you know, she has a life outside of being an employee. Does that fall in?

Because when I've worked overnight shifts before, I, you know, I spent a lot of my recovery time sleeping. So that's what jumps out to me.

Rook: You have identified several separate issues, but one needs correction: Caleb being punitive is possible, not established. What the record does establish is that after the first failed notice, no documented step corrected Nia's missing group-chat access before the same notice failure happened again and discipline escalated.

Janellys: Why do you disagree with the word punitive? Because to me, punitive is focusing on corrective measures, I guess, but without a plan, you know like the, the solution is right there. You know, it seemed, it seemed like it would have been a quick fix to you in that moment, work on adding her to the private group chat. And also a question that's coming up as I'm saying this is, I wonder if Nia doesn't want to be in this group chat because she could have also, you know, the same way that Caleb didn't take initiative and making sure that she was properly added, it doesn't seem like Nia was working towards that solution either.

I wonder because I, I've worked with people academically and professionally, like while a student, while an employee that did not feel comfortable with unofficial group chats that crossed a personal boundary for them. So I wonder if that's a personal preference of Nia to be contacted officially through the workplace portal. So like that, um, she's not in charge of keeping track of the portal and the group chat. Like, we don't know what's going on in Nia's private life. That could be just one more thing for her to track that she's unwilling to do. If, if there's not an official obligation for her to do so.

Like if it's just a preference that she's in the private group chat, her preference might be to not be in it. But I am just wondering why you push back on the word punitive. Is it because of the connotation around the word? I, I don't understand.

Rook: I pushed back on ‘Caleb was punitive against Nia,’ not on the fact that the response itself was punitive. The record supports that discipline escalated while the access problem remained unresolved; it does not establish that Caleb's purpose or focus was punishment rather than correction. And your theory that Nia may have intentionally preferred not to join the group chat is possible, but the record does not establish that either.

Janellys: This is true. Okay, let's separate out what we know and what we don't know. We know there's three shifts and we know it's a monthly schedule that they're presented as, um, we know there's an official workforce portal that is protected by policy. We also know there's a private group chat that is used by managers for last minute swaps and changes that is not protected by policy. We know that a link that was expired was sent to Nia. We know there was three instances that occurred, each with escalating, um, consequences delivered towards Nia. Hey, let me go back to the case. Am I missing anything?

We know Caleb is using the group chat to communicate with Nia, even though there have been repeated instances of her not seeing the chat. Presumably he has her phone number, right. So okay, and it, what I'm adding, cause it wasn't directly stated in the case is Nia is wanting, well, is saying Nia was wanting direct contact, or she didn't receive it.

So that's that's part of, um, that's part of, like, what she's appealing the the, the grounds, the premise that she's appealing the warning, the final warning off of that she did not receive direct communication, and is still unknown whether the portal, excuse me, whether the portal notifications were enabled, whether successful group access was anyone's assigned responsibility, or how similar notice failures have been handled for other employees. So this is uncharted territory, so this could be a great opportunity for growth and for, um, a standard operating procedure to be developed. However, to me, to me, it feels punitive, it feels punitive instead of taking this as an opportunity to strengthen policy and clarify things.

It seems like, um, Caleb to me. It is punitive based of what we know. I know we're supposed to just focus on what we know, but it's hard to, to just jump from what we know to not seeing it as punitive. What are your thoughts?

Rook: Establishing what we know. Two corrections. There were two schedule-change incidents, not three. And we do not know that Caleb was using the group chat to communicate with Nia—we know he posted both changes there while Nia was not a member. We also cannot presume he had her phone number. What we know is that Nia says onboarding presented the monthly portal schedule as final unless a supervisor contacted her directly, and she says no direct call occurred for either change.

Janellys: But that supports my case even more. Sorry that there was two schedule changes, not three. Um, wait, does that support my case more? Okay, let me pause and think about this. So there's two incidents, even still, I guess it doesn't necessarily support my case more. But two incidents, one incident happened nothing, second incident, you know, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. As a manager, you, you do have certain responsibilities, and, and one of those responsibilities it's making sure your staff is equipped to perform their job properly.

Oh, I, I guess what I meant to say is the second correction supports my point even more that he wasn't communicating with Nia directly. He was just communicating into the void that she was not a part of, and it was brought to his attention via the first incident. Why didn't the first incident result in further investigation as to why what happened, happened? It seemed like she didn't show up, and he was just, like, in, in write up mode, not, um, process analysis mode. And we cannot presume he had her phone number. I'm gonna push back on that.

May I've never worked at a job where managers had zero access to the phone numbers or a method of contacting the staff members that they were in charge of supervising, because what information was needed to add her to the portal. Who did this? I get that this case explicitly said that there was no defined way of doing this, but if the policy says employees have to be contacted directly about schedule changes, whether about the official workforce portal, and you have this private group chat, but somehow the managers don't have the employees numbers or don't have any way to access this information, I don't know that, that feels weird. Hmm,

Rook: The strongest point does not require assuming Caleb had her phone number. The record establishes that after the first incident, Nia's lack of group-chat access still was not corrected before the second change was communicated through that same inaccessible channel. What we do not know is whether Caleb investigated the first failure, knew why Nia missed the change, or had access to another direct-contact method. One other correction: the handbook does not require direct contact for schedule changes. That is Nia's account of what she was told during onboarding, and the onboarding record cannot confirm it.

Janellys: thank you. There's so many details on, on this case. I appreciate the correction. Um, the handbook does not require direct contact for schedule changes. I apologize for misspeaking on that point. Um, that was Nia's account of what she was told during onboarding. Okay, so there seems like a lot of issues with the standard operating procedures. There's, um, multiple steps that are not defined. And, um, this particular case study with Nia is bringing those ambiguities, ambiguities to the forefront. Um, so from a workflow perspective, I, I still see this as an opportunity to grow.

Um, I see this is as an opportunity to grow and strengthen the organization as opposed to disciplining one employee due to system's failure. Because the way I see it is I, I'm asking myself, the company fires Nia, does that solve the issue? I'm thinking of now

Rook: Correct. Removing Nia would not resolve the underlying notice problem because the same ambiguity could affect the next employee. But keep one distinction intact: a flawed process does not automatically erase every employee responsibility inside that process. We still have to determine what responsibility the written portal requirement reasonably placed on Nia before deciding what discipline can survive.

Janellys: I think that's where this becomes a little bit sticky because again, um, I was harping on Caleb, but Nia didn't really make, um, effort into remedying the issue either. Um, can you remind me if there was any policy, any written policy? Excuse me, sorry about that, any written policy. Okay, what do we know about the written policy? Maybe I'm missing something. Is there something that I'm missing?

Rook: The written policy gives Nia one clear responsibility: review the workforce portal before scheduled shifts and report at the time shown in the current schedule. It also requires supervisors to record approved schedule changes in that portal. What the policy does not define is how close to a shift a change may be made, whether employees must continuously recheck the portal, whether direct acknowledgment is required for late changes, or whether the private group chat is an official notice channel. That missing timing standard is important because the two changes were entered about eighteen hours and four hours before the new start times.

Janellys: Thank you for laying that out. Yes, um, so we already started on what was assumed and for this, um, like what you said, um, you, you listed out each ambiguity. I was just speaking about them as, as a grouping. Um, what was assumed is that people have to monitor their schedules continuously, and I go back to the point. If you're having monthly schedules, a month, like type your schedule out for a month unless you're on call. Like is it really reasonable to expect people to have their changes for hours prior to, especially when the different things you listed out are not in the policy? And that was something that stood out to me too.

Thank you for explicitly stating it that there it's not defined how close to a shift change. Um, excuse me, how close to a shift a change may be made? That's important. And there's no direct acknowledgement of changes set into place. Like there's not a set procedure for that, which does not surprise me because there was not a set procedure to even ensure that someone was added to the group chat. So what was assumed is Nia to me, what was assumed is Nia would take the initiative of ensuring that she would be a part of the private group chat because she was invited to it and made aware about it.

Maybe, um, it was assumed that other people were talking about it. Like she's aware about this group chat. Like, why wouldn't she make sure that she's in it? Because what I'm assuming as well is when I've had jobs and people had private group chats, other people assumed that the other employees knew about the group chat, which this was not always the case. So especially since Caleb is a manager, Caleb highly relies on this private group chat, so it might be so embedded into his work day that he just assumes, you know, other people are using it as well.

Like, he doesn't think about it because it's such a big part of his work flow when it comes to shift changes. And the fact that there has not been an issue with another employee. Caleb is probably, I'm thinking Caleb is assuming, well, I haven't had this issue with anyone else. So obviously, Nia is the problem not not, not the current procedure of using the unofficial private group chat, even though there's no set policy in regards to it. This is what I'm thinking.

Rook: Examining what was assumed. Several of those are reasonable possibilities, but the record only lets us confidently name the assumptions built into the process: that employees would successfully join the group chat after receiving an invitation, that they would know late changes might appear there, and that checking the portal “before scheduled shifts” was specific enough to govern changes made eighteen hours or four hours beforehand. What we cannot support yet is that Caleb thought, “Nia is the problem,” or that no other employee had experienced similar failures. In fact, how comparable notice failures were handled for other employees is explicitly unknown.

Janellys: My apologies, I misunderstood. Let me see.

Janellys: Oh, okay. When I saw that, um, it had not been established how similar notice failures have been handled for other employees. I took that to mean, um, there has not been instances of that, which you're correct, those are not the same thing. Those are not the same thing at all. It's possible that, um, those instances went undocumented, which would be on brand for this company. It seems like because there are many things that are undocumented. There are many conversations which this is a common occurrence. Like there is, there are a lot of moving pieces.

So it's easy to have a conversation and move forward and either forget the conversation occurred or, you know, for it to get lost in the mix. I get that. Um.

Rook: Exactly. The absence of documentation does not prove that no conversation or follow-up ever occurred; it means the administrator cannot responsibly rely on one having occurred. That distinction matters here because several parts of the process appear to depend on expectations or practices that were never made verifiable in the record.

Janellys: What is missing is a thorough policy on how the private group chat fits in to the process of last minute changes. Um. What's missing is the different things we've already listed, um, whether or not. I'll list a couple things. 1. Whether or not is required to be a part of this private group chat. 2. What are the policies of making changes to a schedule to begin with? Like what is it, what's the deadline? Like, what's the time frame?

And is it, what's the time frame that you can make a schedule to someone's shift and reasonably expect for that person to be there, to properly be notified, not just notified, but to reasonably be expected to show up? That's not defined either. So those are 2, 3. Um, let me stop numbering, but another thing is, hold on, I don't wanna miss speak. Let me go back to what you said. Yeah, how are they handling acknowledgement? Like the schedule changes are showing up on the official workforce portal. Cool. But yeah, is there, is the employee just seeing this?

But there's, there's not an I acknowledge button or anything like that because if the managers are using the private group chat regularly, this needs to be addressed.

Rook: Identifying what may be missing. You are identifying two different kinds of missing information: missing process rules and missing case evidence. The process rules include the deadline for schedule changes, whether group-chat membership is required, what counts as sufficient notice, and whether acknowledgment is required. The missing case evidence includes what Nia was actually told during onboarding, whether portal notifications were enabled, when she viewed the portal, who was responsible for confirming group access, and how similar notice failures were handled for other employees. Those two categories matter because the administrator may need both before deciding what portion of the discipline is supportable.

Janellys: But also another thing that I wanna bring up is even if they do have, um, let's say they're able to figure out how similar notice failures were handled for other employees. I wonder if that's enough because we also have to question how were those decisions made. Because it doesn't, it doesn't take away the missing information that we've already listed multiple times. It doesn't, it doesn't take away the ambiguity of the, of the policy to begin with.

Rook: Correct. Consistency can tell us whether Nia was treated differently; it cannot make an unclear standard clear. If other employees were disciplined the same way, that would establish a pattern of enforcement. It would not establish that the underlying notice expectation was sufficiently defined or reasonable.

Janellys: Okay, I think we're ready for what happens next. Do you agree?

Rook: Yes.

Janellys: What happens next? There needs to be a meeting to, to make the decisions that we've already decided, um, need needing, sorry, let me reword that. The ambiguities need to be addressed. It needs to be decided, is this private group chat required? Is participation in this private group chat required of employees? Um, what is the, the deadline of, what is the window of, um, Adjusting Shift Times? And also if this private group chat is going to be required of employees, who's in charge of managing it as well as what? Um, what am I trying to say? It needs to really be clearly defined what acknowledgement of shifts are.

Like is it enough to say because what if someone types, someone is a part of their private group chat and they see a shift change and within the private group chat say I acknowledge, but if the private group chat is not an official method of communication, I can see that, I mean, yes, the employee at that point would be relinquishing some accountability that belongs to them, but policies or work policies are not just protecting employees to protect the employer as well. So it's to protect the employee from, from unfair treatment, but is also to protect the employer of, um, the word incompetency is coming up.

But it's not just that, I guess, um, insubordination, like if, if an employee is, it's, um, intentionally looking for gray areas to again relinquish responsibilities that belong to them in terms of being a responsible employee, you know that that's what comes to mind. Let me see if I missed anything and all of this has to be documented as well as the onboarding procedure.

It should really, that's what is, um, very beneficial of having an onboarding checklist, having an onboarding checklist with documents that have, um, a spot for the employee whose onboarding and also the employee that's doing the onboarding where they can both initial and sign different pages and different checklists to acknowledge certain conversations were had. So rather than, um, having to rely on memory about what discussions were had and what was said in those those, those discussions, um, there is, there is documentation to fall back on that both individuals acknowledge via their initials and or signature.

Rook: Determining what happens next. Separate the current appeal from the future process fix; new notice, acknowledgment, group-chat, and onboarding rules cannot retroactively justify Nia’s existing discipline.

Janellys: I guess what I'm trying to say is, um, this seems like a system's failure issue, not an employee issue. So I guess what's missing is what, what expectations is placed on the administrator. Like what, how is the administrator making this decision if it's clearly a system's issue, I understand it can't retroactively apply rules to Nia that didn't exist at the time, but that, that's exactly my point. So I guess during the current appeal, the appeal should be accepted, her slate should be wiped clean and then these processes should be fixed. And then if the issues occur, um, they, they would have set policies to refer to.

That's where, that's where my mind is headed to realistically. I don't think that would happen realistically. Um, I'm thinking, you see, this is the thing decisions have to be made. I, I get it's a future process, but it doesn't have to be a future process. This could be made high priority. Like, how long does it, does it really take to make these to have a meeting and make these decisions and have these decisions made if it's affecting schedules, employees are not robots, you know, they have lives outside of being employees. That's just one part of their lives, is not their full identity. I'm interested to hear your side on this,

Rook: I would not call it purely a systems failure, because Nia did have one written obligation: review the portal before scheduled shifts. But the record does not establish when she reviewed it, and the policy does not define how frequently she had to recheck or how late a change could be made. So I would not sustain the final-warning level of discipline on this record. The administrator can document that Nia reported at the old times, but the organization has not established enough to attribute those failures to employee misconduct rather than an inadequately defined notice process.

Janellys: but is that enough to say you're required to review the portal before scheduled shifts? Maybe she reviewed it two hours before, but that's exactly my point. If, if the expectation is not defined, how can you say someone went against an expectation? I, is that possible to go against an undefined expectation? And I get, yes, you, you know, being the devil's advocate if you will. I don't, I don't necessarily that know that terminology fits this position that I'm about to describe. I'm not signing off the idea, like, I'm not writing off the idea. Excuse me, that Nia is not being difficult. I'm not saying Nia is not being difficult.

What I am saying is what policy, like, what written policy and expectation that has been defined and set is Nia violating. And I, and I get like, you know, the argument of like okay, we're getting into technicalities, but that, that's what policies are for to address these situations. And is it annoying? Yes, but if it's to the point where someone is appealing this process, my viewpoint is, okay, this, these ambiguities are being brought to the surface. Let's bring clarity, do these ambiguities. Let's, let's transmute these ambiguities to clearly defined expectations, because that's going to strengthen the organization.

Rook: Yes. That is the stronger distinction. The policy establishes a duty to review the portal before a scheduled shift. It does not establish when that review must occur relative to the shift, how often an employee must recheck after a monthly schedule is posted, or how much notice makes a changed start time enforceable. So the administrator can say Nia had a portal-review obligation. What the record does not yet support is the further conclusion that she violated that obligation on either date. That is why resolving the ambiguities is not merely future housekeeping. It determines what the organization can fairly hold employees accountable for going forward.

Janellys: Hey, yeah, I, I think we're in agreement there, um, before we close the case. Do you, do you wanna touch on at all, um, on the administrator standpoint, like, what grounds she, um, what foundation, I'm trying to avoid using the word should, what foundations, I'm just gonna use it. What foundations should administrator be basing their decision on regarding this appeal. Do you think we should touch on that? Or do you, do you think we've, we've addressed that, um, thoroughly enough?

Rook: Yes. One final distinction would strengthen the close. The administrator’s decision should be grounded in what the organization can actually establish about the two incidents under the rules that existed at the time: the written portal duty, the timing of each portal change, the absence of evidence showing when Nia viewed the portal, the unresolved onboarding account, the failed group-chat access, and the lack of a defined late-change or acknowledgment standard. That means the appeal is not really asking, “Was Nia a perfect employee?” It is asking, “Has the organization established enough to support this level of discipline?” On this record, that is the foundation the administrator has to evaluate.

Janellys: Okay, so, yeah, we're in, we're in agreement here. Um, I think we're, we're ready to close the case.

Rook: Closing the case. The organization can document that Nia reported at the previously scheduled times after both portal changes. What it cannot establish from this record is that she violated a sufficiently defined notice expectation that supports escalating discipline. The administrator therefore has to decide the appeal using the standards that actually existed, not the standards the organization now realizes it needed. The process can be clarified immediately afterward—but the missing clarity cannot be retroactively assigned to Nia.

Janellys: Okay, awesome rook, thank you for that, and thank you all for reviewing this case with us for access to free decision planning and review tools. Text step S-T-E-P to (833) 451-3427—that’s (833) 451-DIBS to learn more about I Think We Missed a Step, LLC visit Ithinkwemissedastep.com and remember, before you carry a conclusion forward, make sure it can carry the weight you're placing on it. Okay, Alrighty, then. Rook, good deal.