# Case: ticket ownership, Olha and Taras > One refund ticket, two answers to a family and two rules that both claim it. Find the structural cause, run the conversations and write the rule. - Course: [From Specialist to Manager: Your First Year Leading a Team](https://productovi.com/courses/from-specialist-to-manager.md) - Module: Conflict and pressure - Lesson 24/32, ~33 min - Source: https://productovi.com/courses/from-specialist-to-manager/ticket-ownership-case ## Two answers to one family **Alex Tutor:** Last week of June. A family asked for their money back for unused lessons, a little outside the standard refund terms. That makes it a refund exception. **Alex Tutor:** It came in as a hard ticket on Taras's rotation day. He replied within twenty minutes: "We'll refund the unused lessons." Next morning Olha wrote to the family that the exception still needed her review. **Sofia:** So the family got two different answers, and complained about both. **Olha:** Refund exceptions are mine, that was agreed with Iryna in February. He promised money he can't promise. Again. **Alex Tutor:** And Taras, in the team chat: "Hard tickets on my rotation day are mine. That's literally what the rotation is." > **Exercise:** A family asked for a refund a little outside the standard terms, a refund exception. It arrived as a hard ticket on Taras's rotation day, and he promised the refund within twenty minutes. Next morning Olha told the family the exception still needed her review. Olha: "Refund exceptions are mine, agreed with Iryna in February." Taras: "Hard tickets on my rotation day are mine." What is the **root cause** of this clash? ## Both are right **Alex Tutor:** Both quote a real rule, and the rotation note doesn't mention refunds at all. A ticket that is both hard and an exception falls into the gap. **Alex Tutor:** Notice "again" in Olha's line. Has this happened before? If so, it's a pattern from the setup, not one bad Thursday. **Sofia:** Twice in May, actually. Both times on a rotation day. **Alex Tutor:** One more thing: Olha had the most overtime of the coordinators in May and June, 38 hours. Every refund exception waits for one person, and in summer someone must cover her vacation. > **Exercise:** Olha and Taras gave one family two different answers about a refund exception that came in as a hard ticket on his rotation day. Which facts point to a **structural** cause rather than to the two personalities? Choose all that apply. ## Before the joint talk **Alex Tutor:** You'll fix the rule, but first the people. Both felt accused in front of the team. **Alex Tutor:** Separate talks first. Taras: what made him answer so fast? Olha: what worries her most? Listen for interests, not positions. **Sofia:** Taras said: "The family was upset, the rotation says hard tickets are mine, and I'm tired of being the sloppy one." Olha said: "If refunds go out unchecked, I answer to Iryna. And I can't be the only gate." **Alex Tutor:** Now map what they said to what they need. That's the material for the joint talk. > **Exercise:** Match each thing said to the **interest** behind it. ## The joint talk **Alex Tutor:** Then one call with both. Open with the family, not the chat: one family got two answers. That's the shared problem. **Alex Tutor:** Each says what matters to them, and the other restates it. Then options before choices: at least three. **Alex Tutor:** How would you open that call? Pick the first line. > **Exercise:** Which opening line for the joint call with Olha and Taras fits best? **Olha:** What if, on rotation days, whoever's on rotation sends the family a holding reply within the hour and keeps the conversation, and I decide the exception within four working hours? **Alex Tutor:** A real option. Others: Olha trains Taras to decide small exceptions inside the policy, up to a limit she sets; or all refund tickets leave the rotation and go straight to Olha. > **Exercise:** After a refund exception got two answers (Taras on his rotation day, then Olha, who owns exceptions), the separate talks showed four interests: families get a quick reply; Taras is trusted with hard work and not judged in public; refund decisions stay consistent; Olha's load is sustainable, with backup. Which outcome serves **all four interests** best? ## Write it down **Alex Tutor:** Whatever they choose, write it into the rotation note and the decision log: the rule, who decides, why, and when you'll review it. **Iryna:** Anything that changes who can approve refund exceptions comes to me first. Inside the policy, I'm fine with Olha delegating up to a set limit, as long as it's written down. **Alex Tutor:** Before you write the rule down: what needs Iryna's sign-off? > **Exercise:** Since February, Olha decides refund exceptions inside the policy, as agreed with Iryna. Olha and Taras have agreed a new rule with three parts. Which one needs **Iryna's approval** before it starts? **Alex Tutor:** And the family: one person writes once, with one answer and an apology for the mix-up. **Sofia:** And the team chat? **Alex Tutor:** One short note about the new rule. No verdict on who was right. **Alex Tutor:** Last step: what has to happen once the rule is agreed? > **Exercise:** Olha and Taras have agreed the new rule. What should happen next? Select all that apply. > **Exercise:** Two rules overlap: the rotation note gives hard tickets to whoever is on rotation, and since February Olha decides refund exceptions. A refund exception that arrives as a hard ticket falls under both. Write the **rule for the rotation note** (2–3 sentences) that removes the overlap: who talks to the family, who decides the exception, by when. ## Your case **Alex Tutor:** Now the whole thing in one note to Iryna: the cause, the conversations, the rule, and what she has to approve. **Alex Tutor:** Keep it short. Iryna reads it before Monday, and Olha and Taras will read the rule part. **Sofia:** Do I write out the conversations too? **Alex Tutor:** Only the opening lines of the joint talk, word for word. The rest as short points. > **Exercise:** Write your note to Iryna about the Olha and Taras clash: cause, conversations, rule, approvals. > **Key ideas** > > - When two people both quote a real rule, look for the overlap between the rules before you look at the people. A repeat on the same kind of day is evidence of structure. > - Fix the people side first: separate talks, then a joint talk framed around the shared problem (the family's two answers), interests before positions, options before choices. > - The rule that ends the clash says who talks to the customer, who decides, by when, and who covers when the owner is away. > - Decision rights agreed with your manager change only with your manager: delegation inside the policy can be fine if it's written down and approved. > - Repair with the customer in one voice, announce the rule without a verdict, record it in the decision log, and review it on a date. **Alex Tutor:** That's June. In July Dmytro and Sofiia are gone, vacations start, and the decisions get bigger: who decides what, and how the team is organized. - Previous lesson: [Overload and burnout](https://productovi.com/courses/from-specialist-to-manager/overload-and-burnout.md) - Next lesson: [Who decides?](https://productovi.com/courses/from-specialist-to-manager/who-decides.md) --- Productovi Learning. Free, no sign-up needed to read.