S
Story
What actually happened, without interpretation.
- — A raise was approved.
- — An equity refresh was denied.
- — A title change happened without cash movement.
What happened, without interpretation?
Every reward decision sends a signal. Most leaders only think about the intent.
A raise, a bonus, a title change, an equity refresh. You think you are sending one message. Employees often receive another.
That gap is where trust is built or broken.
SIGNS helps you see that gap clearly, before or after it happens.
Why this exists
Most leaders focus on making the right decision. Employees focus on what that decision means.
Those are not always the same thing.
Why I built SIGNS
I've spent 20 years in HR and Total Rewards. The hardest part is never the decision itself. It's what the decision ends up meaning to the person on the receiving end.
A raise can land as recognition or as a retention play. An equity refresh can read as “we're building a future with you” or “we're buying another year.” A title change without cash can feel like an upgrade or an insult. Same action. Different signal.
Researchers have studied this for decades. Signaling theory, psychological contracts, attribution research. Good work, but most of it sitting in journals nobody opens in an HR meeting. SIGNS was built to help take that work and turn it into something you can actually use in a comp conversation. This was built because I wanted it for myself.
People do not experience intent. They experience patterns.
Five things to check when a decision isn't landing the way you thought it would.
I
Intent
What leadership meant to signal.
- — Recognition
- — Retention
- — Promotion readiness
- — Market correction
What did you want this to communicate?
G
Gap
Where perception diverges from intent.
- — The employee expected more.
- — The message felt weaker than intended.
- — The action created confusion instead of clarity.
How might this be interpreted differently?
N
Norms
What people compare the decision to.
- — Prior cases
- — Peer treatment
- — Timing of other decisions
- — Unwritten cultural rules
What are people comparing this to?
S
Signal Strength
How strong or credible the signal really is.
- — Symbolic
- — Noticeable
- — Meaningful
- — Matched in size to the message
Is this strong enough to be believed?
Diagnose a decision, understand what happened, or spot the pattern across many.
Pick the mode that fits the question you are trying to answer.
01
Diagnose a Decision
Use before a decision to check what it is likely to communicate.
Time: 7–12 minutes
Focus: Single decision.
02
Understand What Happened
Use after a decision to analyze why it did or did not land as intended.
Time: 40–55 minutes
Focus: Single decision with deeper context and coaching output.
03
Spot the Pattern
Use across multiple decisions to surface repeated signaling issues and an organization-level archetype.
Time: 45–60+ minutes
Focus: Multi-decision analysis.
Companion framework
SIGNS looks at what a single decision is saying. FAIR looks at whether the system behind it holds up.
A weak system puts out weak signals. And over time, those weak signals wear down the system that produced them. That's why I use both.
Try FAIR at fair.arminoorata.com