To ask what you think is fair in this situation?

[Spookytoast]

Person A manages 3 people (B, C, and D).

Person B was on long term sick due to stress, but has been back in the office for almost a year, with reasonable adjustments made for their condition. Before going on sick leave B was underperforming and was subject to performance improvement measures.

Persons B, C and D are all contracted to do the same job at the same level.

Since returning to work, Person B hasn’t been working at the level they are paid for, partly due to them underperforming at a the Lower level work (which was supposed to be just to ease B back in).

There is a new upcoming project which person A must decide who to put in charge of. B and C both really want the project. B really needs to start performing at the higher level again in order come off the performance management scheme but A isn’t sure B will be able to cope with the work. B really wants the project to prove that they are still able to work at that level and have felt demotivated working at the lower level, hence the underperforming. C has worked extremely hard this year to prove themselves and A would feel bad overlooking C for this opportunity when they are more than capable.

However A is under a lot of pressure from B and HR to give the project to B so they aren’t disadvantaged when it comes to performance reviews. A is also worried about discriminating against B due to her condition.

What would you say is fair in this situation, and what advice would you give to A, B and C?

If there is time, I would have the discussion with B about her underperformance and give her a set amount of time to prove that she is capable of working to the lower level that is required. If she is not able to do that I don't see how she would be able to work at a higher level. I do get that it is demotivating to have to do work that is at a lower level than you are capable of, but you should at least be doing it to the best of your ability, and it doesn't sound as if that is the case here.

C. They've worked hard and proved themselves. B has decided that due to feeling unmotivated they'll underperform when actually they could have pulled their socks up, worked hard and been given more as a result. Don't penalise C because B is a whiner.

I would give it to C. I don't think you can blame underperforming on demotivation, that sounds like a bollocks excuse for being lazy and/or shit at not just your own job but the lower level job too. If B gets it why would C bother doing her job, why wouldn't she sit back, get paid the same as the rest and claim to be demotivated too.

It's obvious from your post that you want to give the project to C.

If B is unmotivated with the lower level work, can you give her the normal level work again without giving her this new project?

Well if you give it to B, that'll certainly demotivate C!
I think you have to give it to C. And agree a revised support plan to motivate B and get her back to achieving her original targets. Offer all the training, reviews, mentoring etc that is physically possible. And document everything.

C, b sounds like a piss taker

Can you give the project to C but then pass on some of C's work to B? Presumably doing the project will mean C has less time for some higher level work, B could pick this up? Don't envy you !

I would give C the project as a reward for actual performance during the last year, rather than B who may have the potential to complete the task.

C.
If B isn't performing the lower level work adequately, why should she be given a promotion at C's expense?

A is just very aware that B feels that they are losing out due to their condition (stress) which they don’t feel they control.

But that's no reason for C to lose out?!
C doesn't get the project because B has a stress problem which they haven't been able to get under control for the past year+?
Throw everything at making B feel valued and supported. But don't disadvantage C.

I'd give it to C.

B really should have been using the lower level work to demonstrate that they were able to cope with their workload. They haven't done so. Are there any further reasonable adjustments that could be made for them?

Presumably A will be the one to take the flak if B under-performs? If so, saying "HR told me to give it to B!" isn't going to help them when it hits the fan.

If A has the ultimate responsibility for the project then A must be free to pick the candidate.

C! If B can't perform at the lower level, why on earth would you give a plum project to her (?) when C is ready, willing and able to do it? Talk about rewarding poor performance! If I were C, I'd be so pissed off, I'd be looking for a new position.

But I would also be working with B to raise her performance to an acceptable level. While C cracks on with delivering the project.

The other thing to bear in mind, is that giving the project to B will only increase her stress, which she already admits to not dealing with well.

You can't say I've done a shit job and not tried since the work is too easy, so give me a better one! B needs to prove themselves. I thought the whole point of performance management is to try and address shit performance by either helping the employee to do their job better or managing them out the business (ie do xyz and here are the very clear consequences of not doing xyz). If the consequences of not performing are not followed through then that's rendered performance management useless

Is there a way of getting B involved and giving them more responsibility so they aren't even more demotivated?

I'd say to give it to C. If they were performing currently at the same level I think there would be a harder decision to make, but you can't request to prove yourself at a higher level while underperforming at a lower level - this applies whether there is an illness involved or not. I say this as someone who has in the past been signed off work with mental health problems

What about D?

Give it to C. Stress may be a long term condition for B, however reasonable adjustments have been made, and they are still not meeting the minimum requirements of the job. C is doing the job well. C should not miss out on this opportunity, for it to go to someone less competent.

If you don't give it to C then they have a very good case for constructive dismissal/ unfair treatment/ grievances. You can evidence why you didn't give it to B - they aren't performing at the level required, you have no evidence to not give it to C - they are performing at the required level. It would be pure favouritism to give it to B.

It's up to B to work as well as possible at lower level to prove themself ready for moving back up. If that's not happening, demotivation isn'e really an excuse and they need a performance plan to get them there. On the other hand, perhaps HR want B to have it, possibly fail and lose their job?
I would certainly give it to C. This is business.

Just reread and you're looking for advice for each.
Would it be fair to interview for the project, or for each to write a letter of application for it? Or does A know them both well enough to decide, in which case as above and performance plan for B.

I assume only B and C have expressed interest in the project.

Put it to HR that you'll have two staff demotivated rather than one if it looks as though B is being "rewarded" for having problems, or conversely that C is being discriminated against for not being ill

If C is busy on the new project, would that throw up any more interesting/challenging work B could be taking on to prove him/herself with?

C. Unfair otherwise.
HR need to step up and do something for B, but not this project. It's lazy on HR's part to make you do their work.

If you give it to B, it could be seen that you are positively discriminating for them. I'd be worried that C would become demotivated, then you'd have two underperforming.

Give the project to C but create an opportunity for B to prove herself with a different project