The Acting Supervisor
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.
A regional commercial logistics company has an eight-person client-recovery team. When the team manager begins a six-week medical leave, senior coordinator Marcus Vale is appointed acting supervisor. Marcus can assign projects and approve overtime during the appointment.
Marcus and recovery coordinator Brielle Chen have been dating for approximately four months. They disclose the relationship to People Operations two business days after Marcus becomes acting supervisor. No interim change to Marcus's authority over Brielle is documented.
Four days later, a client named Westbridge requests an accelerated recovery plan. The project needs a lead within two days. A workload report shows that Brielle has the lightest open caseload. Project records also show that she previously resolved two service failures for Westbridge. Marcus assigns Brielle to lead the recovery.
The assignment is not supported by a candidate list or written comparison. Marcus says he considered workload, client familiarity, and availability. Senior coordinator Darius Cole says Marcus had previously told the team that high-visibility recovery leads would rotate. Darius was not asked about his availability. After he questions the assignment in a team chat, another coordinator, Lena Ortiz, submits a written concern to People Operations. Lena reports that several team members view the assignment as favoritism.
The record establishes the romantic relationship, the reporting authority, the favorable assignment, Brielle's relevant client experience, and her comparatively light workload. It does not establish who else Marcus considered, which criteria he applied before deciding, whether the earlier rotation statement governed this project, or whether another manager would reach the same assignment decision.
The Westbridge recovery is time-sensitive, and Marcus may need to make additional decisions affecting Brielle while serving as acting supervisor.
What interim controls and review steps should People Operations require now for the disputed assignment and for any further decisions Marcus may make affecting Brielle?
Janellys: Okay, the case is now in progress, um, a couple of questions that came to mind immediately is with a medical leave, you don't really know how much time there is to, so I'm, I'm, kind of, skipping ahead to what we don't know is we, we don't really know what, um, what the timeline was in an appointing Marcus. Because Marcus didn't disclose this relationship until two days after he was acting. Um, it makes me question what was the two day delay. I mean, maybe he, he just jumped in to the job, you know, so that, that brings about question, so there, there needs to be a policy in terms of disclosure.
Um like, I guess I'm jumping ahead quite a bit, so reel me in, if if, if need it, please, um, you know what, let me let's, let's just first officially, let's get to the first section, cause I am jumping ahead a little bit. Perfect, let's establish what we know. We know that Marcus was appointed because the, as an acting supervisor, because, um, did they say the name when the team manager has to leave for a six week medical leave? So we know a medical leave was taken which, um, left Marcus in charge. We know Marcus accepted this appointment without disclosing his personal relationship with Brielle. We know Brielle has the lightest case load and history and history of success.
Um, we know what Marcus claims his decision process to be. However, he did not thoroughly document his decision process, nor is it confirmed. Um, we do not know, um, if a, if a neutral manager, like a manager with no ties to Brielle would reach the same conclusions. Um, we know this is a time sensitive situation. Am I missing anything.
Rook: One distinction: we know Marcus did not disclose the relationship until two days after he began acting as supervisor. We do not yet know that he consciously accepted the appointment while withholding it; that adds intent the record may not support. And Marcus's explanation for his decision is part of the record, but unless there is independent documentation supporting it, it remains his reported rationale rather than an established fact. Those distinctions aside, you have the main factual structure.
Janellys: Oh, okay, immediately I'm gonna push back a little bit. Um, I guess technically, we don't know that, that he accepted. No, we do know that he accepted the appointment while withholding it. I'm, I'm not sure why you're saying that. We don't like, do you think he forgot that he was dating Brielle for four months when he accepted this position? Like, it just escaped his mind. He, he, of course knew. Um, I do appreciate the, um, the correction on, on Marcus's explanation. Let me go back to the case and read that really quick. Um, the assignment is not supported by a candidate list or written comparison. Marcus says he considered workload, client familiarity and availability.
Senior coordinator Darius Cole says Marcus had previously told the team that high visibility recovery leads would rotate. Darius was, Darius was not asked about his availability after he questions the assignments in a team chat. Another coordinator, Lena Ortiz, submits a written concern to people operations. Lena reports that several team members view the assignment as favoritism. Okay, I guess I missed that. Darius Cole was not asked about his availability. Okay, so that, that's something that, that's very big that I missed. Um okay, the record establishes the romantic relationship, the reporting authority, the favorable assignment, Brielle's relevant client experience, and her comparatively light workload.
It does not establish who else Marcus considered, which criteria he applied before deciding whether, whether the earlier rotation statement governed this project, or whether another manager would reach the same assignment decision. It doesn't even establish if he considered anyone else at all. Never, never mind. Oh, now who he considered? Did he consider anyone outside of Brielle? Oh, okay, I really miss that. So that, yeah, that changes things, my apologies. Um, it's not really looking good for Marcus. So not only was Darius not asked about his availability, but it is unsure if, um, if anyone other than Brielle was asked about her availability, which, um, this is, this is not looking good. I'm interested to hear what you have to say.
Rook: That does make the assignment harder to defend on the current record. We know Darius was not asked about availability, and we do not have evidence that Marcus conducted a documented comparison among multiple candidates before selecting Brielle. But the missing comparison does not prove favoritism by itself. What it does establish is that Marcus made a consequential decision involving someone with whom he had a personal relationship, without leaving enough process behind for another decision-maker to independently verify that Brielle was selected on neutral grounds.
Janellys: Um, I can't help but to notice that you did not address my push back on Marcus. Are you claiming we don't know? Let me, let me go back to exactly what you said. You said, and I quote, we do not yet know that he consciously accepted the appointment while withholding it. That adds intent the record may not support, like, I I I I, I don't understand that viewpoint. Like, are, like, it's just like being, like, ultra, ultra conservative when it comes to making claims in a professional environment, because I stand on that push back. Like, what are you saying? Marcus forgot that he was in this relationship with someone for four months.
Like, he just slipped his mind when an opportunity of authority fell on his lap. Like, what, what are you saying there?
Rook: Your pushback is fair. My earlier wording was too conservative. If Marcus had been in a four-month personal relationship with Brielle, then he plainly knew the relationship existed when he accepted supervisory authority. What we cannot establish is why he waited two days to disclose it—whether he deliberately concealed it, did not recognize the disclosure obligation immediately, or something else. So the supported fact is: he accepted the acting-supervisor role while already in the relationship and disclosed that conflict two days later. The unknown is his reason for the delay.
Janellys: Okay, I can accept that. Are, are we ready for this section, or are we ready to move forward to the next section?
Rook: We are ready to move forward.
Janellys: Okay, what was assumed, what we, for me what jumps out as an Assumption, as in an Assumption is Marcus disclosing his relationship with Brielle two days after being appointed the position of acting supervisor was sufficient. That, that's end of the thought. That that that in him disclosing the relationship two days after, um, becoming acting supervisor as though that that, that sufficiently addressed the potential conflict, um, conflict of interest. Um, what was assumed is assumed by who? Um, let me look at the end question. What was assumed, um, by Marcus?
I, I would say, I guess, um, how I'm interpreting this is identifying an individual who can perform the role needing to be filled well is enough because it's already established that, um, I'm finding the wording, there was no candidate list or written comparison. So it's assumed that her case load is comparatively light in relation to others. But how can you, how can you say that confidently if he didn't ask Darius about his availability?
So I guess another thing that can be assumed is, um, he would have that Marcus would have to have conversations with different individuals to have a strong understanding or to have an understanding what the availability is like because Marcus could potentially say he's familiar with the cases that they're working on, you know, he's familiar with the project on their plate and he judged their availability based off of that without having a conversation with them. What are your thoughts?
Rook: Yes. I would frame those as assumptions built into the decision process rather than assumptions we can confidently assign to Marcus's internal thinking. The process appears to have treated disclosure after assuming authority as sufficient to manage the conflict, and Marcus's own assessment of workload, familiarity, and availability as sufficient without a documented comparison or direct check with other plausible candidates. Whether Marcus was actually permitted to infer availability rather than ask is still unknown—that belongs in what may be missing.
Janellys: This is true. Are we ready to move into what may be missing or do you think there there's more conversation to be had here?
Rook: Yes. We have enough clarity on the assumptions to proceed.
Janellys: Thank you. So what may be missing as we've, um, identified is how is availability determined, um, whether or not direct conversations with the members is needed to, um, verify availability. Um, what exactly is the policy when it comes to a supervisor having a personal relationship with the person that they have immediate authority over project wise, like, task wise, um, work wise, and what, what is the disclosure policy? Like, is there a policy to that, that or did a policy did not exist?
Was there a, or is there not a policy in place in terms of the timing of disclosure of personal relationships and, and how it relates to potential conflict of interest because that could also add fuel to the fire when it comes to the frustrations of other team members who were overlooked or not chosen for the position of acting supervisor? Yeah, and what was the, what are the checks and balances that are in place, um, when it comes to authority figures and, um, outside relationships that they may have with people on their team, especially people that they supervise? These are the things that jump out to me. Would you like to add anything?
Rook: Yes. I would add one missing point: what happened organizationally once Marcus disclosed the relationship. Disclosure only matters if someone then determines whether he may continue supervising Brielle, whether this particular assignment requires independent review, and who has authority to make that call. I would also want to know whether there was any established selection process for a recovery lead at all. If there was not, then People Operations is evaluating both a potential conflict and a discretionary decision made without a verifiable comparison.
Janellys: Thank you for adding those. And I didn't even think about that. Like, how was Marcus chosen to begin with? Um, was there a comparable list there? You know, is there an expectation for Marcus to be more thorough? And, um, selecting, um, one of his team members for this specific project, like, is, is Marcus expected to be more thorough than whoever selected Marcus was? Does that make sense? So, like, is Marcus being held to a higher standard of thoroughness than whoever selected him to be the acting supervisor was held to?
That's coming out a little crunkily, um, because if there's a comparison this, um, especially with how time sensitive the issue is from an organizational standpoint, it might, um, take up more time to sort this situation out than it would be to, um, select the new acting supervisor. However, that's gonna come with tension. Is there anything you wanna add into this before we move into what happens next, a really quick, um, what may be missing? Yeah, um, a big thing of why, of what may be missing, what is missing is we don't know why Marcus, um, delayed disclosing for two days. Like we don't know, like maybe, um, Marcus decided to, um, prioritize work over the relationship.
Maybe he was thinking like, do I end the relationship and focus on the job? It's only been four months, like, four months. It's not, it's not nothing, but it's not. I can understand why someone would choose a career over a four month long relationship. So I'm, I'm very plainly saying we do not know this, we do not know this. I get that, but I'm adding it because this is something we do not know. And that's, that's literally what we're discussing. What made,
Rook: Yes. One distinction: whether Marcus was held to a higher standard than whoever appointed him only matters if those two selection decisions were governed by comparable expectations. We do not yet know how Marcus was appointed, what criteria governed that appointment, or whether selecting a temporary recovery lead required a different level of documentation. And the two-day disclosure gap is a genuine missing fact. His reason could materially affect how the organization evaluates the disclosure failure, but none of the possible explanations—including whether he was reconsidering the relationship—can be treated as established without evidence.
Janellys: yeah, what happens is what should have happened to begin with. Um, there should be written documentation of at least. Well, first, they need to look at the team members availability, like, availability wise, who are viable options. Once you have that list, um, there needs to be set criteria for making this decision, like, who's qualified to work on, um, these types of assignments, especially since it is a time sensitive assignment. And that decision should be made based off of relevant client experience as well as documented skills, documented performance. And then if the decision holds up, then, um, then they move forward with Brielle.
But if not, um, it might be necessary to reconsider the decision itself, especially with, um, with the conflict of interest already existing. It, that's already a sensitive area is difficult for me to believe and accept that Marcus thought it was appropriate to appoint Brielle without written documentation. So I guess that goes back to what may be missing is why was Marcus not thorough when he appointed Brielle? Why was he not thorough in documented, documenting, um, his decision? It doesn't take much to put two and two together that, um, the claims of favoritism are going to pop up. They're going to sprout. You know, so, um, what happens next?
The policies need to be examined about disclosures of conflict of interest relationships in terms of like timing, how that affects appointments of authority, how that affects, um, decision making when this dynamic exist, supervisor dating the person that they're supervising, how disclosure of these personal relationships impact, um, Work Assignments distribution, all of these things need to be addressed. And the, the why of, um, Marcus says delay, um, it's a tricky situation because, um, a part of me wants to say that's none of the, the why, it's not necessarily any of the organization's business because it's kind of like tipping into gossip a little bit.
It's more of the the, what, you know, not to instead of focusing on the why of the situation of, of why the decision was made, I think it's, um, more appropriate for the organization to focus on like what and what implications happen that this awkward phrasing, like what are the consequences of this? The decision that, that stays in, um, more appropriate territory. What are your thoughts?
Rook: I agree with the boundary you are drawing around the ‘why,’ with one qualification. The organization does not need Marcus's private relationship reasoning, but it may need to know why the disclosure was delayed insofar as that affects organizational responsibility—for example, whether he misunderstood the requirement, did not recognize the conflict, or knowingly proceeded despite one. For the immediate assignment, Marcus should not be the person validating his own decision. A neutral decision-maker should compare the viable candidates using the same relevant criteria and decide whether Brielle's assignment independently holds up; separately, the organization needs to determine what authority Marcus may exercise over Brielle while that relationship exists.
Janellys: Um, I'm gonna push back a little bit. I I I, I still don't. I I I still I'm gonna push back on the. Why a little bit because I think the organization needs to determine whether or not they have a policy of disclosures of conflict of interest, and whether that policy include use the timing of disclosure and how that timing can potentially impact appointments of authority. And if they don't have it, they need to develop one and then reference that. And I understand that there is gonna be the issue of, like, retroactively enforcing that.
It may not fully fix the situation, but what good is asking why if they, if they don't have that in place, if they don't have that policy in place in the policy is not thorough. Also, um, I think Marcus still, it is my opinion that Marcus still needs to thoroughly document his decision in a way that a neutral party, as you suggested, can review and not only review Marcus's decision, but I think the neutral party should come up with their own conclusion and compare it to Marcus's. I think Marcus still should be expected to have a thorough documentation of his decision process.
Um, because, um, I think it, it is worthwhile to ask to, worthwhile to question his decision making abilities within this capacity. Because it's pretty obvious to, to be thorough when assigning your girlfriend work. You know, so the fact that he's already making that decision on a time sensitive case without thoroughly documenting, that immediately makes me question his decision making process in and of itself, like that decision in and of itself. So, um, I think that's grounds to question his decisions. So I don't think it's enough to just bring in a neutral party to, um, make a decision. I think, like I said, Marcus needs needs, needs to thoroughly, um, document his decision.
And the neutral party and him can compare that, and that can be compared. What are your thoughts?
Rook: I agree with that distinction. A neutral review should not replace Marcus's accountability for the decision he actually made; Marcus should reconstruct and document the criteria he says he used, the information he relied on, and why Brielle was selected, while the neutral reviewer independently evaluates the candidates without relying on Marcus's conclusion. And on the disclosure question, I would narrow my earlier point: if there was no defined disclosure requirement or timing standard, the organization has very little basis for treating the two-day delay itself as misconduct. It can still examine what happened during those two days and whether Marcus exercised authority in a conflict-sensitive situation appropriately, but it should not invent a disclosure rule after the fact and then judge him against it.
Janellys: I agree in terms of the two day delay, um, if there's no defined disclosure requirement, that that, that point is just, um, evidence for a more defined policy to be established. But in terms of this scenario, I don't think it, um, like you said it, it does not, um, identify misconduct. It cannot be used to identify misconduct. Um, I think we're ready to close the case.
Rook: Closing the case. The organization has enough to question the integrity of the assignment process, but not enough to conclude that Marcus selected Brielle because of favoritism. The supported concern is narrower: he exercised supervisory authority over someone with whom he had an existing personal relationship, selected her for a consequential assignment without a documented comparison, and at least one plausible alternative candidate was not asked about availability. The responsible decision-maker should require Marcus to document the basis for the decision he already made and have a neutral reviewer independently evaluate the viable candidates using consistent criteria. If Brielle remains the strongest choice under that independent review, the assignment can stand on that basis; if she does not, it should be reconsidered.
Separately, the organization must determine what supervisory authority Marcus may exercise over Brielle while the relationship continues and whether its conflict-disclosure rules actually define when disclosure is required and what happens after disclosure. If those standards did not exist, the two-day delay can expose a policy gap, but it cannot responsibly be converted into misconduct after the fact.
Janellys: I agree, but I wanna throw in that if a new policy set into place, what I know we're closing the case. But, I mean, policies are created all the time that are come effective immediately. So it's not to say that a reassignment is not needed because what's gonna, I mean, at the end of the day, this is a company, it's an organization, it's not a social club. So whatever best serves the client, I think is reasonable to be chosen by the company. So if they they, they can't, like, retroactively, um, write up Marcus.
But if, if the findings are that after Marcus, you know, provides thorough documentation of his rationale and a neutral third, not third party, the neutral party comes in and makes a decision to appoint someone that's not Brielle, it, it's fair game to question whether Marcus can remain as an acting supervisor. But we don't, we don't have that information. I know I'm throwing that into the closing, but I am gonna do it anyways and see what you have to say.
Rook: Yes. A new policy can govern authority and assignments going forward immediately, even if it cannot retroactively make Marcus's earlier delay misconduct. And if the neutral review shows that Marcus's assignment decision was materially unsound—or that the organization cannot responsibly manage the conflict while he supervises Brielle—that can become relevant to whether he should continue as acting supervisor. That would be a prospective management decision based on current organizational risk and client needs, not retroactive punishment for violating a rule that did not yet exist.
Janellys: Okay, cool. I think, uh, we said all we had to on this, so, um, I think we are ready to close the case. So Rook, go ahead and close the case.
Rook: Closing the case. The record supports concern about the integrity of Marcus's decision process, but it does not establish that he selected Brielle because of favoritism. He entered the acting-supervisor role while already in a personal relationship with her, disclosed that relationship two days later, and then selected her for a consequential, time-sensitive assignment without a documented comparison showing why she was the best available choice. The organization should separate three decisions. First, Marcus should document the basis for the assignment he actually made, including the information and criteria he relied upon. Second, a neutral decision-maker should independently evaluate the viable candidates using consistent criteria—availability, workload, relevant client experience, qualifications, and documented performance—and compare that result with Marcus's decision.
Brielle should not be removed merely because she is dating Marcus; if the independent review supports her selection, that matters. If it does not, the assignment should be reconsidered. Third, the organization must decide whether Marcus can appropriately continue exercising supervisory authority over Brielle and, more broadly, whether he should remain acting supervisor. That decision can consider what the independent review reveals about his judgment and the organization's ability to manage the conflict while protecting the client and the team. The two-day disclosure delay is different. If no existing policy established when disclosure was required or what should happen after disclosure, the organization cannot retroactively convert that delay into misconduct.
It can, however, establish an effective policy now governing disclosure, supervisory conflicts, work assignments, review authority, and what happens when a personal relationship intersects with organizational power. The missed step was not simply that Marcus dated someone he supervised. It was that authority, conflict, and a consequential assignment came together without a process strong enough for the organization to independently verify that the decision served the work rather than the relationship.
Janellys: It looks like we are in agreement. Um, thank you for restating my points, and with that, um, I believe the case is closed. Thank you, Rook for, um, for that again, and thank you all for reviewing this case with us for access to free decision planning and review tools. Text STEP to 833-451-3427 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.
