Handling disputes in a team challenge without losing trust

There are two ways to deal with a complaint about a score: make it disappear, or make it part of the system. The first is faster that week and more expensive later.

The numbers in this article are illustrative examples, not data from a real event.

Why complaints need a procedure

In a 12-week challenge with 60 people, expect some complaints; we have no data on how many. They fall into three kinds:

1. My score was calculated wrongly — a data entry error or a formula error.
2. The rule is unclear — a case nobody specified.
3. The rule is clear but unfair — disagreement about the design.

Each kind needs a different answer. If you use one answer for all three, you will say “those are the rules” to all of them — and lose trust on the third kind, which is the kind that most affects whether people stay.

Step 1: Log it publicly

Each complaint goes onto a list the whole team can see, containing only: date, sender code, type, status. Do not record the details unless the sender agrees.

This may have a useful side effect: duplicate complaints may drop when people can see others are being handled (our expectation, not measured).

Step 2: Verify with data, not with accounts

The question is always: “Is there a record that shows this?” Three sources can be checked:

• The participant’s original entry (with a timestamp).
• The published score calculation.
• A screenshot or device export, if the participant offers it voluntarily.

If there is no source, the answer is: “We have logged this, and from next week the rule will state this case explicitly.” Do not award points based on an unverified account — doing that once opens the door for every time after.

Step 3: Decide with reasons, within a published deadline

Reply deadline: 5 working days. If it will slip, announce that before the deadline passes.

A short announcement template:

Example only; the names, codes and dates below are invented.

Complaint #12 — code T3-P07, YYYY-MM-DD Subject: week 6 score is missing 40 minutes of cycling on Thursday. Check: the original entry records 20 minutes, and no supplementary entry was filed inside the 72-hour window. Decision: week 6 score stands. From week 7, the supplementary deadline will be stated on the submission page and repeated in the second weekly email. Decided by: the coordinator.

Three things matter in this template: it names the data checked, it names the decision, and it names the system change that comes with it. There is no “because the rules say so” section.

Step 4: Add it to the public FAQ

Every resolved complaint becomes a line in the FAQ. Once the FAQ is long enough, you have a practical rulebook written by the cases that actually arose — far better than rules written in advance in a meeting room (our view).

Limits of authority

There are three things a coordinator should not decide alone:

• Changing the factors mid-challenge.
• Awarding points with no record.
• Handling a complaint that concerns themselves.

For these three, a second person is needed — usually someone from HR or a member who is not competing. This does not slow the process down; it gives the decision standing.

When to change the rules mid-challenge

In most cases: do not. The one reasonable exception is when the current rule produces a clearly and systematically wrong result — for example, one activity type converted with the wrong unit. When that happens, the change must:

1. Be announced before it applies, and apply from the following week.
2. If it corrects a technical error (for example a wrong unit), it may be applied retroactively, announced with the corrected scores.
3. Be recorded explicitly in the public change log.

Sources

No external sources: this is an operating proposal from the editorial team.