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?

B has a small mini project which was originally C’s before B’s return which C handed over but being honest B hasn’t managed it particularly well and C has ended up helping quite a lot

If B isn’t even coping with the small project why would you consider giving him a bigger one? It sounds like C is propping up B. You can’t give B the star project and then expect C to prop up B. Just give the project to C since it sounds like he’ll end up doing the work anyway!

It should go to C, even with all the reasonable adjustments B isn't able to perform at the level needed. Giving B the project will be a disaster and would be a slap in the face to C.

“So B doesn’t play the discrimination card”

This is one hell of a depressing thread. No matter the rights and wrongs of who should get the project, some of the attitudes are disgusting. Ie calling deciding someone is lazy on page one.

B has been underperforming for over a year, and has been on formal performance management for a year, with reasonable adjustments in place and still isn't performing at the required level?

Good grief.

B must surely be on some kind of final stage warning by now, not sure why anyone would think giving additional responsibility in those circumstances is sensible! I see there has been an attempt to redeploy her. When she said no, what was the alternative offered?

(It must be frustrating for B to need to do higher level work but not be given the opportunity. But it does sound like they don’t see the bigger picture.)

Clearly the role must go to C but I don't understand why B is doing lower grade work. Prior to their sickness absence, were they stressed because they couldn't handle the higher grade work, or was the stress related to something outside of work? If the latter, then the lower grade work could seem like a punishment and the demotivation may be understandable.

I've been in the position of returning after long term sickness and being unable to perform in my own job. My employers tried to persuade me to take a downgrade but this wouldn't have worked as my problem was partly cognitive. HR really should have understood this aspect ( especially as i repeatedly explained it to them) and stepped up ways to give me extra support; maybe your HR need to do this for B.

The one getting my sympathy here is C, who has gone over and above time and again by the sound of it and yet thanks to HR is potentially to be overlooked - based on the information given here I can't even believe it's even under contemplation.

Nothing infuriates me more than a meddling HR department who want to go with the "tick box" solution, they have a duty to the employees yes but running the business into the ground benefits no-one. And not once have I seen someone go off with stress and anyone check on those left behind picking up the slack, as if it's unthinkable that the working environment may be stressful for more than one person!

So C gets overlooked because B has had some tough times will ill health and demotivation. No, life isn't fair but really? The problem you will get is then C will feel demotivated and maybe leave and then you have more issues. Give to C give them a chance to shine. Explain to B they will have their moment but it's not with this project.

If person B wants more responsibility, more pressure, more challenge, more rewards, more kudos and more opportunity they are going about it the wrong way by underperforming in any of the current or previous jobs. Person B ought to have been overperfomjng even if the job was boring and biting Boss A's hand off to prove they're up to he challenge. .....not holding a gun to Boss A's head with HR in tow ffs!
Give the bloody project to person C ffs and show that work and effort truly pays, not emotional blackmail!!!!

It’s very simple to me. B has been underperforming at less difficult work since return. So how can they take on a more challenging project?

It’s all very well Hr wanting you to give it to B but they don’t have to deal with the immediate fall out when the work doesn’t get done or gets done badly.

Also I’ve been C once in the past. Sucked up an awful lot to facilitate B (as did D, E and F in my case) who everyone in management and HR danced around because B was difficult and litigious. To not only have to work harder and make accommodations is one thing but to then lose out on better work for an underperforming is hugely frustrating.

Be careful here because give the work to B and it is clear you will have an underperforming project you'll have to fix and both C and D will be pissed off

Boss A needs to decide if they're running a culture of true merit or emotional blackmail.

I think some posters on here need to remember that stress is a mental health condition and, if it's long term and substantially affects an individual's ability to carry out day to day tasks, it can be considered a disability. This could apply in B's case.

C should get the project. In fact if I was C and the project was given to B over me then I'd probably look for a new job where my work was actually appreciated and rewarded. Then A really would be up shit creek; B incapable of managing the project and no C to pick up the slack.

If B is considered to have a disability, that doesn't give B carte blanche.

It could make dismissal on the grounds of capability a possibility, if a suitable job can't be found.

Yes, reasonable adjustments can be made and it sounds like the employer has bent over backwards with flexi hours and the like.

If OH has had a look over the work and the workplace and can think of nothing else to do, B could be a bit stuffed.

C should have the project and B should have more mini performance reviews documented down to the smallest detail. B may ‘know her rights’ and complain but if it can be detailed that she didn’t do x/y/z and in the same period C did do p/q/r as well as picking up the slack on x/y/z I don’t see how a complaint could be upheld. A complaint from C on the other hand...

Crazy has put it very well on both counts.

Give this project to the individual who has demonstrated they can do the work and do it well. Give it to C, if you give it to B then you can kiss goodbye to C who quite rightly will be really pissed off and will find another job. Show C that you value her commitment and her hard work. Don't give this to B. She has done nothing to prove she is capable of working at a normal level much less a higher level project.

If you have stress and are under performing how is giving that person a more challenging project going to be workable?

No amount of reasonable adjustment is going to negate the stress it brings!

If you are disabled and all the necessary adjustments are made and you still can't do the job does that mean you are unsackable?

It sounds like B is not up to the job despite the performance improvement plan and accommodations. A needs to talk to HR about the fact B isn't meeting the performance improvement plan and insist on HR doing their job in helping to ensure A has the talent she needs on her team to do the best for the company by helping to manage the lack of progress so that, assuming she doesn't miraculously improve, she can be let go at the end of the plan.

It doesn't seem reasonable to me that failing at lesser tasks is excusable because they haven't been given bigger ones (possibly, if she started out doing really well at the lesser tasks and then wasn't given more responsibility I could see this, but otherwise it doesn't make sense) however, if HR think B's complaint about not being given fair opportunity is reasonable and may cause the company problems then there may need to be some adjustment. (Though if this is the case A should complain about HR not providing her with the information that the performance improvement plan was inappropriate). If the project is particularly big/important it would be inappropriate for this to be B's first "big" responsibility. A should look for stepped responsibility for B, It would be irresponsible to throw B in at the deep end and shout "sink or swim".

The key though is in getting HR onside in terms of recognising their responsibility in ensuring the team has the talent it needs, and this may mean A pushing her boss to push the HR department harder.

It doesn't matter whether B is disabled, lazy or something in between, if they can't do the job they can't do it. Piling more stress on B (prove yourself with this project) is surely counterproductive.

With regard to objectives, if you're on performance management surely not being sacked is the objective? Bonuses are for excellent performance not barely scraping the job description.

No idea if it would be appropriate in your context but (assuming OP you are A) could you get B and C (and D) to “pitch” for why they should get the project and decide on the strength of the pitches who should lead? Then you can give an explanation to the one who doesn’t get it based on what they’ve both presented?

Obviously C.
You should evidence to HR all the reasons why B can't be given the job. Perhaps they are not aware of how badly B is underperforming.

Really unfair on C to have joint involvement in the project as a few people are suggesting.
B has been back at work for enough time to demonstrate that her performance is below par. If anyone should be picking up her slack it's A her manager not C who deserves the good project.

We have a B - without the long term absence - and the way our manager has dealt with it - making other members of the team "buddy up" with him i.e. do his work and refusing to give them frank feedback that has been provided- means I've lost most of my respect for the manager.

I'd run an interview process between b and c and make them complete a related task to illustrate their approach. That puts them both at equal footing to start with and shows how fair and transparent you are being about the role answer tion process. Not even HR or Bs rights can argue aagainst that.

As A, I would give the project to C. Unless I wanted the project to fall in a hole, in which case I'd go ahead and give it to B.

B must know that they're under-performing. If they don't, their PMS isn't being managed properly and that comes squarely back to whoever is managing that.

Does D not feature at all in this?