Phase 2 - People & JTBD June 2026 Sourced from user-research/docs/personas.md

People & JTBD

Jobs to Be Done

The complete job inventory for Brio, built from user-research/docs/personas.md and research/docs/research.md. Every job cites its source. Includes the full JTBD matrix, MVP core selection, and a strict critique of what is confirmed versus still hypothesized.

Product-Level Job

Main Job of the Product

Main Job

When I am handed responsibility for employee wellbeing with no HR training, I want a guided system that tells me what to run and when, so that I feel competent and the team actually benefits.

When I am handed responsibility for employee wellbeing with no HR training

I want a guided system that tells me what to run and when

So that I feel competent and the team actually benefits

Persona: Priya (Operator, primary)

Source: research/strategy.md Segment A JTBD (CONFIRMED as primary job by research gap analysis). Confirmed by competitive gap: no competitor has built a self-serve, guided wellbeing product for the no-HR operator. Source: research/docs/competitors.md "What Is Missing Across All."

Functional

Related Functional Jobs

J1 through J6. Each in canonical format: When / I want / So that. Sources cited per job.

When I need to show the owner that the people investment is paying off

I want an honest team-level signal I can point to

So that the program gets continued support and I feel confident in my work

Personas: Priya (Operator, primary driver) - Marcus (Owner, primary driver at renewal)

Source: research/strategy.md Segment B JTBD; research/docs/aarrr.md Revenue section. CONFIRMED via Officevibe numeric score visualization as analogous mechanism. Source: research/docs/competitors.md, Officevibe comparison entry.

When my team might be struggling

I want to know before someone actually resigns

So that I can act before it becomes a crisis

Personas: Priya (Operator) - Marcus (Owner, secondary - risk reduction)

Source: research/docs/ux-patterns.md Pattern B1 ("surfaces when something needs attention"); research/docs/research.md Key Conclusion 3. CONFIRMED via Officevibe AI-alert model. Source: research/docs/competitors.md, Officevibe AI analysis entry.

When I am enrolled in a wellbeing program at work

I want to know with certainty that my response is private before I respond

So that I can answer honestly without fear of consequences

Personas: Yemi (Employee, primary driver) - Priya (Operator, indirect - her program fails if Yemi does not respond honestly)

Source: research/docs/ux-patterns.md Pattern B5 (MOST CRITICAL behavioral pattern); research/docs/benchmark.md Mechanism 2. CONFIRMED via Culture Amp pre-survey disclosure mechanism. Source: research/docs/benchmark.md Mechanism 1.

J4 [?] Partial hypothesis

When I am asked to check in about my wellbeing at work

I want it to take under 30 seconds

So that I do not resent the interruption or feel surveilled

Persona: Yemi (Employee, primary driver)

Source: research/docs/ux-patterns.md Pattern B3 ("radically simple: one question, one emoji-scale response, one line of privacy context"). CONFIRMED as design implication; no direct quantitative data on 30-second threshold. [?] The specific 30-second number is an assumption from CLAUDE.md MVP scope, not from competitive research.

When I need to make a budget decision about people programs

I want a clear signal of what is working and what is not

So that I can say yes or no with confidence

Personas: Marcus (Owner, primary driver) - Priya (Operator, secondary - she uses this signal to justify the program to Marcus)

Source: research/strategy.md Objective O2 and Segment B; research/docs/aarrr.md Revenue section. CONFIRMED via Officevibe benchmark: owners respond to numeric clarity with context. Source: research/docs/competitors.md, Officevibe comparison entry.

When I am setting up an employee wellbeing program for the first time

I want a system that tells me exactly what to do and in what order

So that I do not have to invent the process myself

Persona: Priya (Operator, primary driver)

Source: research/docs/ux-patterns.md Pattern 1 (Guided Program Flow). CONFIRMED via Headspace Core self-serve model and Gusto's "even if you're not an expert" onboarding posture. Source: research/docs/competitors.md, Aspirational group.

Emotional and Social

Emotional and Social Jobs

The emotional layer underneath the functional jobs. These drive retention and referral, not just activation.

Emotional Jobs (E1-E3)

When I do people work, I want to feel like a competent "people person," so that I am proud of what I have built even without an HR title.

Persona: Priya (Operator, primary driver). This is the emotional core of her primary job. Source: research/strategy.md Segment A Motivation ("competence and clarity"); research/docs/ux-patterns.md Pattern B4. CONFIRMED as the emotional job by the research gap: no competitor has designed for this feeling.

E2 [?]

When the company shows interest in my wellbeing at work, I want to feel genuinely supported rather than monitored, so that I trust the platform and continue to engage.

Persona: Yemi (Employee, primary driver). Source: research/docs/ux-patterns.md Pattern B3; research/docs/benchmark.md Mechanism 2. CONFIRMED behavioral pattern; specific emotional framing is synthesis. [?] Direct employee voice on this distinction (supported vs. monitored) needs validation.

E3 [?]

When my team investment is clearly working, I want to be able to share that with peers, so that I am seen as a leader who builds good culture.

Personas: Marcus (Owner, secondary driver) - Priya (Operator, secondary driver for peer credibility). Source: research/docs/aarrr.md Referral section ("owners share to look like caring leaders, not for cash incentives"). [?] Hypothesis derived from SMB owner behavior patterns, not from direct research on this product category.

Social Jobs (S1-S2)

S1 [?]

When I find a people-ops approach that works, I want to tell other operators in my network about it, so that we help each other navigate roles we were not trained for.

Persona: Priya (Operator, primary driver for referral). Source: research/docs/aarrr.md Referral section ("operator-to-peer is the strongest channel in year 1"). [?] Hypothesis - no data on operator community behavior in this specific market. The assertion is borrowed from adjacent SMB SaaS patterns (Gusto's observed word-of-mouth growth).

When I receive a team check-in result that shows something meaningful, I want to share it with the owner easily, so that the owner is informed without me having to translate the data.

Persona: Priya (Operator, primary driver for share action). Source: research/docs/aarrr.md Revenue section (operator upgrades to give owner visibility); research/strategy.md Business Model (owner dashboard as upgrade driver). CONFIRMED as the core upgrade emotional driver.

Not Yet Backed by Research

Hypothesis Jobs

Jobs in this section are candidates that could become confirmed if validated in user research. Treat as directional signals, not design requirements.

Not yet backed by research [?] Needs validation

HJ1

When I am a small business owner and the team starts to struggle

I want to be able to show employees I acted on their feedback

So that participation rates stay high in future check-in cycles

Why hypothesized: the research confirms that employees respond to visible follow-through (research/docs/ux-patterns.md B5 implies this) but no competitive product has documented a specific "close the loop" mechanic for SMB operators. If this job is real, it suggests a "you said, we did" communication feature is in scope.

Source: research/docs/ux-patterns.md Pattern B5 (behavioral implication, not direct evidence). [?] Needs validation.

HJ2

When I am an employee and I have responded honestly to a check-in

I want to see some outcome at the team level

So that I know my participation mattered

Why hypothesized: participation habits decay when employees feel the tool is extractive rather than reciprocal. No competitor has designed a visible "here is what the team said overall" moment for employees. If this job is real, it suggests a lightweight team-level result display for employees (aggregate only, no individual) is needed.

Source: research/docs/ux-patterns.md Pattern B3 (participation habit forms over 3-4 weeks). [?] Needs validation.

Prioritization

JTBD Matrix

Rows: jobs. Columns: personas plus function and competitive status. Importance 0-3 per cell (3 = critical, 2 = meaningful, 1 = minor, 0 = not applicable). Where importance is unknown: [?] rather than an average.

Job	Priya (Operator)	Marcus (Owner)	Yemi (Employee)	Function	Competitors
Main - Run wellbeing without HR training	3 Existential. Without this, she cannot use the product at all.	1 Not his job	-	Guided program engine, curated library, opinionated linear onboarding	Not closed by any self-serve competitor. Nivati/Woliba/Wellable all require demos or HR sponsors.
J1 - Prove investment is working	3 Her professional credibility depends on it	3 Renewal driver	-	Owner dashboard (aggregate-only, paid tier)	Officevibe partially closed this but repriced out of SMB ($4,999/yr).
J2 - Know if team is struggling early	3 Her early warning job	2 Risk reduction	-	Pulse loop, threshold-based trend alert	Officevibe (3-respondent threshold alerts) partially closed. Not available in self-serve SMB pricing today.
J3 - Know response is private before responding	-	-	3 Gate to any honest participation	Pre-check-in disclosure sentence, minimum-N threshold, non-configurable architecture	Headspace Core ("no PII in utilization data") partial. Culture Amp (enterprise only). No self-serve SMB product closes this fully.
J4 - Check-in takes under 30 seconds	-	-	3 Friction reducer	1-3 questions, emoji/slider, no account required for first check-in	Generic survey tools (Typeform) technically can, but they fail on J3 (privacy architecture).
J5 - Make confident budget decisions	1 Secondary (she shows the data, Marcus decides)	3 Primary driver	-	Owner dashboard, trend view, plain-language interpretation	Not closed by any competitor for SMB owners. Enterprise tools exist (Glint, Lattice) but are enterprise-priced.
J6 - Set up a program without inventing the process	3 Precondition for everything else	-	-	Guided onboarding flow, pre-selected first program by company size	Headspace Core (content auto-delivery). Wellable (curated challenges). Neither is self-serve for no-HR operators.
E1 - Feel competent as a people person	3 The emotional core of her job	-	-	Score with interpretation plus next action; confirmation that setup was correct	Not addressed by any competitor.
E2 - Feel supported not monitored	-	-	3 Determines response honesty	Privacy visible in UI (persistent label, pre-check-in sentence, subscription-model explanation)	Apple Health and Oura Ring score highest on this. No wellbeing competitor closes it.
E3 - Be seen as a caring leader	1 Optional	2 Social motivation for renewal	-	Share prompt at 30-day milestone, referral path	Not addressed by any competitor.
S1 - Tell network what works	3 Natural operator behavior	1	-	Single share prompt at 30-day positive milestone	Not addressed.
S2 - Share result with owner easily	3 The upgrade emotional driver	2 Wants to receive this	-	Operator-to-owner share flow, monthly owner digest	Not addressed in self-serve SMB context.

MVP Core - 3 Jobs to Build First

Criteria: importance score 3 for Priya (Operator) AND not closed by any existing self-serve competitor.

Main job: Run wellbeing without HR training. Operator importance 3. Not closed anywhere in self-serve form. The entire product exists to serve this job.
J2: Know if team is struggling early. Operator importance 3. Officevibe partially closed this but is now $4,999/yr flat - the self-serve SMB gap is open. This is the early-warning job that drives retention.
E1: Feel competent as a people person. Operator importance 3. Not addressed by any competitor. This is the emotional job that drives 90-day retention and referral. Closing this requires every operator-facing touchpoint to carry an interpretive layer (plain-language score context, confirmation of correct setup, suggested next action).

Note: J3 (employee privacy) and J4 (30-second check-in) are also MVP-critical, but they serve Yemi (Employee), not Priya directly. They are preconditions for Priya's jobs to function. Without J3 and J4 working, there is no employee participation, which means no aggregate signal, which means the Main job, J1, J2, J5, and E1 all fail. Include them in MVP scope as supporting architecture, not as primary design surfaces.

Strict Review

Critique

A strict review of claims across user-research/docs/personas.md and user-research/docs/jtbd.md. Every claim classified, danger list surfaced, 3 targeted questions.

Claim Audit

Claim	Status	Source / Basis
Operator has no HR training	Confirmed	research/docs/competitors.md - all competitors assume HR sponsor; gap explicitly documented
Operator engages in bursts, not continuously	Confirmed	research/docs/ux-patterns.md Pattern B1 - direct behavioral pattern
Operator needs score plus interpretation plus next action for aha moment	Confirmed (mechanism)	research/docs/competitors.md Officevibe AI-action mechanic; research/docs/ux-patterns.md B4
No self-serve competitor targets the no-HR operator	Confirmed	research/docs/competitors.md - Nivati/Woliba/Wellable demo requirements cited
Privacy doubt kills participation before first check-in	Confirmed (mechanism)	research/docs/benchmark.md Mechanism 2; research/docs/ux-patterns.md B5; Culture Amp disclosure architecture
Privacy by architecture earns trust; privacy by promise fails	Confirmed	research/docs/benchmark.md benchmark scores (Limeade 11/40, Typeform 14/40 vs. Culture Amp 33/40, Apple 35/40)
First check-in is the trust-forming moment	Confirmed (mechanism)	research/docs/ux-patterns.md B3 - direct behavioral pattern
Owner checks in under 2 minutes per month	Hypothesis	research/docs/ux-patterns.md B2 - stated as design implication, not validated with owners
Owner upgrades = operator wanting to show owner the result	Hypothesis	research/strategy.md Business Model reasoning; validated JTBD analysis reasoning - not yet tested with real users
Employees will participate honestly if architecture is shown (not just promised)	Hypothesis - Riskiest	research/docs/benchmark.md confirms mechanism; but no data on participation rates in SMB employer-run tools at steady state
65% participation rate achievable	Hypothesis	research/strategy.md O3 target - Culture Amp mechanism confirmed but no SMB-specific participation rate data
Minimum-N threshold of 5 is the right number	Closed (MVP decision)	Founder decision, June 2026, not by re-research. N=5 flat for MVP; no live count shown during open cycles. Legal validation deferred. See research/strategy.md Section 5 D1/D4/D5.
Operator is 26 to 45 years old	Hypothesis - unsourced	research/strategy.md Segment A - marked [?] in source. No data.
Mood quotes for all 3 personas	Invented (synthesis)	Synthesized from behavioral patterns. Flagged explicitly in user-research/docs/personas.md. Not real user quotes.
Owner age range	Unknown	Explicitly marked [?] in source. No data at all.
Operator or owner discovers Brio first	Closed - founder decision	Default established: operator-first (June 2026, not by re-research). Landing page speaks operator language; reversible by paid A/B test. See research/strategy.md Section 5 D3.
SMB employees are more skeptical than enterprise employees of employer surveys	Hypothesis	Reasonable inference from small-team inference risk (everyone knows each other) - no direct data
Employees participate once, then decide	Confirmed (pattern)	research/docs/ux-patterns.md B3 - direct behavioral pattern
Operator-to-peer referral is strongest channel in year 1	Hypothesis (borrowed)	research/docs/aarrr.md notes this is borrowed from adjacent SMB SaaS patterns, not validated for this product

Danger List

Hypotheses that block design or product decisions, in priority order. Status updated after Step 6 verification and Step 8 decisions.

Employees in an SMB will participate honestly if the privacy architecture is clearly shown

This is half the riskiest assumption. Step 6 CONFIRMED self-censorship is a real risk AND that the mechanism direction (disclosure, threshold, no live count) aligns with documented best practices. Not killed, but not fully resolved until the no-product prototype test runs.

Partially Verified See research/live-research.md C1, C3. Smallest test still required (research/strategy.md Riskiest Assumption).

Showing the structural privacy mechanism drives higher participation than a policy link

Affects whether the disclosure format must be architectural and specific, or whether "anonymous" alone is sufficient.

Unresolved No controlled study found. Direction is supported (research/live-research.md C3) but not empirically proven. Carry the architectural disclosure design; validate in beta.

The operator, not the owner, discovers Brio first

Affects landing page message and activation flow.

Closed - founder decision Operator-first is the working default. Reversible by paid A/B test. research/strategy.md Section 5 D3.

Mood quotes / voice of the operator

Copy on every surface is currently synthesized, not from real user voice. Real quotes from r/officemanagement, r/humanresources, r/smallbusiness, LinkedIn ops coordinator posts, and Glassdoor reviews citing "no HR" would sharpen every persona section.

Still open First-phase user interviews will close this.

3 Targeted Questions to Close the Most Important Gaps

Do SMB employees actually participate honestly in employer-run anonymous surveys when they can see a specific privacy mechanism - or do they self-censor regardless?

This is the question that kills or confirms the product premise. The research shows the mechanism works at Culture Amp (enterprise, approx. 1,000+ employees). It does not show whether it works in a 15-person company where the manager sees the same 3 people at lunch every day. The inference risk is fundamentally different at small scale.

Where to look: SHRM research on anonymous survey participation, academic literature on social desirability bias in small-group survey contexts, Reddit posts from employees at small companies describing how they respond to work surveys.

In practice, does the operator or the owner discover and initiate a wellbeing tool like Brio?

The entire acquisition funnel, landing page message, and activation flow depend on the answer. If the owner initiates (and then hands it to the operator), the landing page should lead with ROI and risk reduction. If the operator initiates (and then sells it up to the owner), the landing page should lead with competence and ease.

Where to look: B2B SaaS acquisition pattern research, LinkedIn posts from SMB operators describing how they found HR tools, Reddit - r/smallbusiness for how founders describe assigning people responsibilities.

What words do SMB operators actually use to describe the pain of running wellbeing without HR support?

The personas currently use synthesized language. Real quotes would sharpen the copy on every surface that targets Priya. This is not just a copy exercise: the words people use to describe a problem reveal which part of the problem is most salient, which informs feature prioritization.

Where to look: Reddit - r/officemanagement, r/humanresources, r/smallbusiness. LinkedIn content from people who recently got handed "people stuff." Glassdoor reviews mentioning "no HR" or "small team."