Restructure to deal with poor performance

[Hjsjshsn]

I work in the public sector and my team is going through a cost-saving exercise. Management have decided to restructure to get rid of poor performance , which means my role and another colleague’s role (poor performer) will be made redundant, with a new combined role created that I’ll need to apply for (which I know they will have me in mind for). I understand the rationale — it’s a quick way to reduce costs and redesign the work in a more effective way — and I’ve stayed professional about it at work. But underneath, I do feel frustrated and a bit demotivated. I’ve asked whether the new role will be paid at a higher level, and if it isn’t, I’m starting to wonder if I should look for opportunities elsewhere. How would you feel in this situation?

sounds very anxiety inducing obviously

Will you have more responsibility in the new role ?

I'd look for a new job and I'd seek legal advice on constructive dismissal. Why should someone else's poor performance endanger your job? Plus does the role need 2 people?

I have been through several restructures which were a way of getting rid of people who were in some way failing, and from what you describe it is similar. Very frustrating and I agree demotivating, as managers should be dealing with poor performers separately under a process for such failings.

So assuming you are successfully appointed, you will get to do two people’s work instead of one? Sounds awesome.🙌

The official reason for the changes is cost pressures…….

Thanks all for your replies! Some interesting points here, they are effectively getting rid of what the other colleague does but yes I agree there will some elements that need to go somewhere.

I agree it’s cost pressures and the wider team have quite a few people not doing much! This is all the stuff I need to hear.

I wouldn't be sure it would be any different elsewhere. This is happening across the public sector as there are more and more cuts. Totally par for the course I'm afraid.

The best thing you can do - presuming you get the new role - is be totally clear from the start that you can't do the work of two people, and set out your parameters. Ask for clear objectives and priorities.
I've seen people, in the wake of restructures, attempt to do the jobs of those who have left, plus their own. All that does is set totally unrealistic expectations and mean that, when they inevitably go back to working at a "normal" workload it looks like they're underperforming as not as much is being delivered.

Of course if you want to leave for a more senior role somewhere else then do so, but senior roles in the public sector are ludicrously competitive at the moment due to the number of people looking (and would likely come with more stress).

I’m actually thinking of applying for a charity job. It’s less money 😬 by about £4k but remote but more opportunity to learn and get experience in this sector. I could manage on this salary but my husband thinks I’m crazy to consider less.

It’s so so hard to get rid of people in the public sector I don’t blame them for doing it like this. It works.
The downside is that they don’t want to pay redundancy so commit to finding the unsuccessful candidates jobs elsewhere in the organisation. That means any areas with vacancies end up with the duffer and so it goes on.
I wouldn’t worry too much. Have been through two restructures and it’s surprisingly easy to fill the gap left by some people!

The pension won’t be a patch on the public sector one.

It’s so frustrating that the person who isn’t doing a great job is going to get a pay out. IME they usually manage to get another job straight away too!

I know it’s 4k less but how much do you pay in travel costs? It could have less impact on your monthly ins and outs than you think. On the other hand as pps have said the pension may be less.