HR JUDGMENT CHALLENGE 002
THE RESTRUCTURING
MEMO
120 roles are being eliminated. The proposed memo explains it as part of the company's AI transformation. Every sentence in it is accurate.
What would you do?
THE SITUATION
Every sentence checks out. The story still isn't proportionate.
120 roles are being eliminated. The proposed memo describes it as part of the organization's AI transformation.
The breakdown: 30 roles from AI-enabled process changes, 35 from function consolidation, 55 from planned cost reduction. AI did contribute to this restructuring. Nothing in the draft is fabricated.
You're signing off before it goes out.
Only 30 of 120 roles actually depend on AI.
MAKE THE CALL
What do you do?
Choose before you continue.
WATCH THE CHALLENGE
Coming October 26.
The video for this challenge publishes October 26. Check back then — or work through the situation and questions below in the meantime.
THE JUDGMENT PROBLEM
A real cause is not the explanation.
The memo isn't lying. AI really did cause part of this. What it's being asked to explain is something much bigger.
Without the AI program, consolidation still happens. Cost reduction still happens. 90 of the 120 roles still go. Only 30 depend on AI.
Same memo. A disproportionate story — because "AI transformation" becomes the memory of all 120 losses, not just the 30 it actually explains.
One label, and every future AI project at the company inherits it.
THE WEIGHT A CAUSE EARNS
AI doesn't need to disappear from the explanation.
It needs the weight it actually earned.
A cause can be completely real. Judgment determines how much weight it's actually earned — not every true cause deserves the headline.
THE JUDGMENT DIFFERENCE
Accurate is not the same as fair.
Is this statement accurate?
How much would still have happened without it?
"As part of our AI transformation" — a fair explanation? It depends which of the 120 people you're explaining it to.
BETTER QUESTIONS
Before you approve the memo, ask:
How much would still have happened without this cause?
What does this framing teach people about what AI leads to?
Am I explaining why the organization decided this, or why this person is affected?
Those two questions may not have the same answer. This isn't about whether AI caused the restructuring — it's about how much of it AI actually explains.
SO, WHAT WOULD I DO?
Use two explanations.
At the company level, give the real weight of each cause — 30, 35 and 55, not one label standing in for all three. At the individual level, explain why this specific role is affected.
C isn't wrong. It's close — it just asks one memo to answer two different questions at once.
THE HR JUDGMENT TAKEAWAY
Don't confuse a contributing cause with the explanation.
Give each cause the weight it actually earned.
Separate the organization's story from each person's.
How much of this decision would still have happened if the cause you're crediting had never existed?
That's the question the memo has to survive before it goes out.
BRING THE CHALLENGE TO YOUR TEAM
Make judgment visible.
Judgment Challenges can be explored with your team through a private 90-minute Judgment Lab, turning the scenario into a practical conversation about attribution, communication and what a label teaches an organization.