The Shift Swap With a Hidden Condition
You hear a phone call between two coworkers at a distribution centre. Andre asks Bev to cover his Saturday shift, 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. Bev says: "I can probably do it. Thing is, I'm already at 38 hours this week and Renata won't approve overtime without 48 hours' notice - so it's not a no, it's a 'go ask Renata.' Also my car's in the shop until Friday, and the first Saturday bus gets me here at 6:40." Andre needs the swap because of a family wedding two hours away.
1. Bev says "it's not a no." What has she actually committed to, and what must Andre do before he counts the shift as covered?
Read the worked answer
Bev has committed to willingness, not to coverage. The distinction matters because Andre's next step depends entirely on it.
Her sentence names the blocker and the person who owns it: an eight-hour Saturday on top of 38 hours is overtime, and overtime needs Renata's approval with 48 hours' notice. So the shift is not covered until Renata says yes.
What Andre should do:
- Check the clock - if Saturday is less than 48 hours away, the approval route may already be closed, and the conversation with Bev is moot.
- Put the request to Renata himself, with the reason attached, rather than telling Bev to do it. Bev offered the condition; Andre owns the outcome.
- Line up a second option before Friday, so he is not negotiating from zero.
Treating "probably" as "yes" is how Andre ends up at a wedding with an uncovered shift.
2. Two obstacles appear - the overtime rule and the bus. Which can Andre solve himself, and which can he not? What is the practical move for each?
Read the worked answer
The bus - solvable by Andre. A 6:40 arrival against a 6 a.m. start is a logistics gap worth 40 minutes. Andre can offer a pickup, a taxi share, or a swap of the first hour with a third colleague. He controls this and can fix it in one sentence.
The overtime rule - not solvable by Andre. He cannot approve hours, shorten the notice requirement, or reinterpret the policy. His only leverage is timing and framing: get the request to Renata early, state the operational reason (a shift would otherwise be uncovered), and let Renata decide.
The judgement being tested: offer help where help is actually yours to give; do not improvise solutions to other people's rules. An offer to "sort out the hours somehow" would put Bev in the position of breaching a policy on Andre's behalf.
3. Bev never actually answers the question Andre asked. What was that question, and how should he close the call?
Read the worked answer
Andre asked "can you cover my Saturday shift?" - a yes/no about outcome. Bev answered a different question: "am I willing to?" That is a common and reasonable move when the answer depends on someone else, but it leaves Andre without a decision.
A good close names the decision point, the owner, and a time:
"Okay - so the only thing standing in the way is Renata. I'll put the request in this afternoon and text you by five either way. If she says no, I'll ask Dev tonight so he still has notice."
Why this works: it converts an open-ended "probably" into a checkable fact with a deadline, keeps Bev's goodwill intact because her condition is respected, and protects Andre by naming a fallback before he needs one. Leaving the call with "great, thanks" is the failure mode.