Meena joined Dynamics Business five years ago as head of operations and now manages a team of seven. She is good at her job but has found the past couple of years extremely difficult due to frequent staff turnover, with Operations Team leaders not lasting longer than six months due to the workload and the organisation not looking after its staff or making them feel valued. She has had three different Operations Team leaders over the past year and a half.
Hiromi, the latest Operations Team leader, joined Meena’s team from another department just over five months ago. He fits in well with the team and is liked by everyone. Meena has done her best to support him as she is keen to fill the position long term, but Hiromi is not delivering to the expected level. He is often given work that he forgets about and comes up with excuses when asked. Meena explains the work to him verbally and by email, and adds the deadlines to his calendar, but nothing seems to work. Meena has spoken to him about the issue and raised it again at their most recent weekly meeting, warning him that she will need to extend his probation period if things don’t improve. Hiromi mentioned then that he thinks he has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which might be affecting his ability to focus and deliver, but that he is not 100% sure. He avoided responding to Meena’s question about whether he’d been formally tested.
Meena is advised to choose between offering him a formal assessment or not extending his probation
After the meeting, Meena thinks about their conversation. She wants to be fair and give him every opportunity to improve and succeed and does not want ADHD to stand in the way, but she is also under a lot of pressure to make sure that the department does well. She also wonders whether Hiromi was being honest.
While Dynamic Business has a Speak Up framework, its representative no longer works for the firm. Meena therefore discusses the issue with her line manager, who dismisses it and puts more pressure on her to push Hiromi to deliver. Meena is concerned that this may have a negative impact on Hiromi’s self-esteem and mental health. After all, she has a duty of care towards every member of her team.
Meena decides to speak to the external HR company that her organisation employs to support employees. She meets with one of their advisers, explains the situation, and is given two options: she could not extend his probation period, given that he’s not delivering, or the organisation could offer Hiromi a formal assessment, should he wish to accept it. If it is confirmed that he has ADHD, it would be best to keep him in his post and offer him extra support so that he can deliver or find a more suitable post for him internally, to avoid discriminating against him.
Meena is overwhelmed by this advice. She wouldn’t want to keep an employee who is unable to do his job, but she also does not want to discriminate against him. Despite her line manager disagreeing, she offers Hiromi a formal assessment, but he brushes it off, possibly out of fear of being discriminated against.
To make things even more complicated, Meena is unhappy in her current job and has been applying for others. She has recently had an interview at a competing firm and will have her second interview in a couple of weeks.
This dilemma appears in the 30th anniversary edition of The Review magazine. The CISI's opinion and voting results will be published in the October 2022 edition.