I manage two employees who don’t get along and it’s getting out of control

by Alison Green on April 22, 2025

A reader writes:

I took over as the director of my former team about a year ago. I inherited an ongoing HR issue between one of my direct reports (Tammy) and her direct report (Beth). Beth hates Tammy. Beth had applied for the promotion to Tammy’s position when it was last open but my predecessor hired Tammy from the outside, and Beth had strong feelings about being passed over. Tammy was not the best hire; she is not a strong manager. But we are a government agency, and while Tammy isn’t my best employee, she is not so bad that there would be any chance I could fire her. I have worked on coaching her around some specific behaviors that I know bother her staff and she is doing a little better there, and her relationship with her other direct reports has started to improve.

But not Beth. Beth came in hot at me from day one in this role that I needed to “fix” Tammy. She went around the chain of command to me constantly for every small nitpicky complaint she had about everything Tammy does. And ultimately, Beth just doesn’t like Tammy on a personal level, which she’s told me very plainly.

We had a come-to-Jesus type conversation with all three of us a few months ago to get to some basic agreement on how they would work together (who would cc who on emails, how leave requests would be handled, all really basic stuff that shouldn’t need to even be said for two management level staff, but we laid it all out). The nitpicky complaints to me stopped.

But it seems like Beth has now just given up. She looks absolutely miserable in every meeting. If she’s not talking, which she virtually never does unprompted now, she stares into space with a look on her face like we’re torturing her. She was always a bit of a negative person, but that has just exploded — while she rarely talks at all, virtually everything she does say has a complaint attached to it or a deep sigh involved. Beth also supervises other staff and I’m really worried that she’s not only becoming incredibly negative herself, but that at least one of her direct reports is following her lead in complaining a lot about other staff.

I feel like I have some idea of how to deal with the negative comments. I’m less sure what, if anything, I can do about her showing up at every meeting looking like it’s sheer torture. I’m thinking of pulling her aside and she saying, “I’m concerned about you, our last three team meetings you looked really miserable to me.” At the end of the day, though, she’s made it really clear that nothing will resolve her issue except not reporting to Tammy, which is not an option I have available. And while Beth’s behavior also isn’t great now and her performance has slipped down to pretty mediocre, in the space we work in it doesn’t begin to approach fireable.

Are we all just stuck? I’m feeling stuck. And I know Beth feels stuck. And I know Tammy feels stuck that much of Beth’s hostility is rooted in personal dislike and a history of hiring decisions that Tammy didn’t have anything to do with. I’m going to keep coaching Tammy to improve. Can I do anything else here?

We can’t talk about this without saying that not being able to do anything about a poor manager on your team is … well, Not Good. So first and foremost, I strongly recommend that you question that as much as you can! Can you really not do anything about those things, or is it more that it’s a massive pain with a ridiculous number of bureaucratic hoops to jump through? Sometimes people say “we can’t fire in our organization” when what it really means is “it’s a huge pain to fire here, but it can be done.” (And yes, I know government is its own thing, but even there, there are things you can do if you’re willing to put in the time.) Plus, even if you can’t fire a problem performer, that doesn’t mean you can’t lay out stronger performance standards and keep pushing her toward them.

Of course, it’s possible that you’ve thought through how much time and effort it would take and determined that your energy would pay off more if spent on other things. But if there’s any chance that you haven’t fully thought through all the options available, please do — not just for Beth, but for all the other people Tammy manages, too. Just because they’re not as vocal about it as Beth is doesn’t mean that they’re not deeply frustrated by reporting to her, too.

Okay, with that behind us…

The next step is to separate your concerns about Beth into two buckets: the concern about her being so obviously miserable and the concern about what effect that might be having on the people she manages, since those require two different approaches.

If it were just that she looked miserable, I’d say you should have a very up-front conversation with her where you say, “You’ve looked really unhappy lately, and I want to talk about what’s going on. I know you’re unhappy reporting to Tammy, and you have serious concerns about her as a manager. Realistically, XYZ is not going to change because of ____ (reasons). You should assume XYZ will still be that way a year from now, or even a few years from now. I want to be up-front with you about that because I want you to be able to make good decisions for yourself, and my strong advice is to be honest with yourself about whether you can find a way to be reasonably happy within that reality, or whether this is just not a good match for you long-term. I’d hate to lose you, but I’d hate more for you to spend years being this unhappy in your job.”

In many ways, this is similar to last week’s letter about the young employees struggling with the realities of work; the situations are different but part of the solution to both is to say, “Let me give you really transparent info about what will and won’t change so you can decide for yourself if this will work for you.”

But while ultimately Beth’s feelings about work are her own to manage, there’s also a point where it can become a work issue for others — like if she’s shutting down to the point that she won’t engage in meetings or if she manages people who are getting that doom and gloom splattered all over them. Both sound like the case here, and those are things you have standing to take on not just as a fellow human concerned about her happiness but also as a manager concerned about the way it’s impacting her actual work

What to do about that depends on the specifics of how it’s affecting Beth’s staff — but it sounds like you’ve seen enough to have real concern that it is. So the conversation needs to include something like, “Ultimately, your feelings toward Tammy are your private business as long as they’re not disruptive at work, but I’m seeing it affect your team in XYZ ways.” Then offer clear statements of what, specifically, you need her to change in that regard. (That should include her performance slipping to “mediocre,” as well.)

Crucially, though, you don’t want to get into a situation where Beth is being held to a higher standard than Tammy … because that’s just going to make the problems with Beth worse. If you’re going to take a stronger hand in managing the Beth situation (and you should), you’ve got to take a stronger hand in managing the Tammy situation too.

But if you can say honestly to Beth that you’re working closely with Tammy on the issues that concern her, then you’re on much more solid ground in saying, “I’ve heard your complaints, I’m actively working on them, but this is the reality we’re in and your responsibility is to do XYZ on your own end of this.”

You may also like:
{ 268 comments }

{ 268 comments… read them below }

  1. Chairman of the Bored*

    I’ve worked at several places where the common perception was that you couldn’t fire somebody just because they were bad at their job.

    In every case, it was in fact possible to fire them – it just took varying degrees of paperwork. Demotions were even easier.

    IMO “negative comments” are a reasonable outcome to being bad at your job and making people miserable.

    1. RIP Pillowfort*

      Government employee here- yes it is absolutely possible to fire or demote someone like Tammy or Beth. It’s just a lot of work. You have to coach them, you have to document the issues and how they impact work, you have to sometimes bluntly tell the person ” you have to act professional and not stare off into space during meetings!,” etc.

      It’s harder when it’s stuff like this because you could potentially coach them up. But half of that is Tammy and Beth’s responsibility to fix. If they’re not going to fix it- they’d be on a PIP where they need to meet some basic professional norms (like not acting like this) and on the way out. Because this is too much turmoil for employees that aren’t better than mediocre.

      1. Spreadsheet Queen*

        I was wondering if they were Government employees somehow – and the problem being less about the work of firing them and more about that in the current environment, you may not be authorized to replace them. If that’s the case, it may absolutely be better to deal with two grumpy mediocre employees than to find a way to let them go – give or take whether it’s bad enough that other (better) employees can and will leave over it.

        1. RIP Pillowfort*

          That’s sometimes part of the equation unfortunately. We don’t have a hiring freeze but the normal process is months long. So it’s a question of if you’re willing to absorb the work in the interrim. I mean it’s the same issue we have if someone retires. We can’t hire a replacement until they go.

      2. Reluctant Mezzo*

        Musing on the availability of an Elavil dart gun…nah, the handbook says I can’t. But yes, this can’t be allowed to go on. Any chance of a lateral transfer for either or both, or will Beth simply hate everyone?

    2. (not that) Beth*

      If Beth was just complaining to OP in a monthly skip-level 1:1 that Tammy was bad at her job and making people miserable? Yes, reasonable.

      But given that Beth is refusing to participate in meetings, complaining every time she talks, acting like a misery demon on a daily basis, and seemingly inspiring her direct reports to be similarly complaint-heavy and miserable? Not so reasonable anymore, even if she’s right about Tammy.

      1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

        Misery Demon
        Emotional Vampire
        Drama Llama
        My workplace based fantasy romance is writing itself.

        2. Matt*

          Based on some of Alison’s previous posts, I’d imagine that the romance would ultimately reveal that Tammy and Beth actually have feelings for each other they’ve been denying, but they finally give in and their hatred turns to love.

          You’ll probably need to finish the book promptly after that before their romance inevitably blows up in everyone’s faces and they hate each other again!

          2. Grimalkin*

            Finish the first book before then, sure, but it sounds like you’ve found a likely plot for the inevitable sequel…

      2. Dust Bunny*

        This. She might be right about Tammy but she’s not behaving any better herself. At least Tammy seems to be trying to improve.

        1. dawn*

          My thought was that Beth might be deliberately or inadvertently sinking to Tammy’s level. It sounds like Beth and Tammy might both be pretty mediocre, and OP could be at risk of holding Beth to a higher standard than Tammy and potentially other Beth-level employees.

          1. Princess Sparklepony*

            I’m wondering if OP should mention to Beth that there is no way she could ever be considered for Tammy’s position if she doesn’t start getting herself together. (Not that she would automatically be considered should Tammy leave the position,) but without Beth working with Tammy harmoniously there is just no way she could be considered for a management position.

            Sort of – part of being considered for management is the ability to get along with all sorts of people without showing a bad attitude.

            1. Also-ADHD*

              There’s no reason for Beth to hope for a promo in general now so I don’t see why that would matter?

          2. Don’t know what to call myself*

            It sounds to me like she’s given up hope on anything ever getting better.

    3. Cmdrshprd*

      ” “negative comments” are a reasonable outcome to being bad at your job and making people miserable.”

      Eh that does not actually seem to be entirely the case here, Beth might think it is, but Beth is not the most objective.

      It seems that Tammy is not the “best” manager but rather just an okay manager.

      “I have worked on coaching her around some specific behaviors that I know bother her staff and she is doing a little better there, and her relationship with her other direct reports has started to improve.”

      The fact that relationships with other reports is improving is a sign that Tammy is not really as bad as Beth thinks. But Beth’s mismatch in personality and sour grapes over not getting the job seem to be the bigger contributing factor.

      I don’t think “negative comments” are reasonable after you know how the situation will be, you either accept it and tolerate it or move on, but being negative and complaining does not do any good for yourself and others.

      Working with negative Nancy (or Beth) in this case is a major pain. I’ve had coworkers I wanted to scream “Yes, I agree xyz sucks, but its not going to change either learn to live with it and shut up or find a new job, but I’m tired of your moaning and complaining all day.”

      That is bad enough as coworkers, as a manager it is even worse, managers don’t have to pretend to be happy, but they should not feed the negativity well.

      1. English Rose*

        “Managers should not feed the negativity” Yes this. I had a manager like this once and it brought me down day after day.

      2. Festively Dressed Earl*

        Thanks for this; performance isn’t binary. LW said that Tammy isn’t the “best” or a “strong” manager. That’s not the same as Tammy being the worst or weak. If she’s meeting expectations but has some room for improvement (and is actively trying to improve), then firing Tammy is an overreaction. Beth, on the other hand, is actively undermining her boss and bringing down morale while resisting improvement. That’s cause for dismissal even if she’s hitting her KPIs.

        1. Miette*

          Yes, and I think OP needs to examine the root of her impressions of Tammy’s shortcomings as well. Because if they’ve all come from the complaints of Beth and others like her who have likely become embittered because (by Beth directly or indirectly) that Tammy was hired, well then, how true could those complaints be?

      3. AnotherOne*

        I agree. It sounds like early on the issue may have been 30%-40% Tammy but now it’s probably not that high. More 10%.

        Beth needs to accept she didn’t get Tammy’s job. It didn’t happen.

        And I sorta think LW may need to flat out acknowledge to Beth that because Beth didn’t handle it well that Beth is unlikely to receive a similar promotion in the future even if Tammy were to leave or a similar position became.

        And if they haven’t been documenting Beth’s behavior, they need to. There needs to be documentation and sitting down with Beth of- I’ve seen this problem and I need to see an improvement. This behavior isn’t okay, from anyone but especially a supervisor.

    4. NothingIsLittle*

      Having worked in local and state government: if Tammy and Beth are meeting the positions’ policy requirements, you often really, genuinely can’t fire them. It would depend on which policies apply and how they’re written. You have to be at a “not meeting the minimum requirements” level or blatantly violating policy, which “not so bad that there would be any chance I could fire her” doesn’t convey.

      1. Jean Pargetter Hardcastle*

        As a fellow government manager, I also understood “not so bad that there would be any chance I could fire her” to mean exactly this. It can also vary a bit depending on whether or not a union is involved (though probably a manager wouldn’t be protected) and how risk-averse the HR is.

        Nonetheless, OP, if you’re not already, I definitely recommend documenting *everything,* good and bad. This also includes following up every verbal conversation with a written recap and ending it with “Please let me know by DATE if this does not match your understanding of our meeting” or similar. That way, if need be, you can show that you gave them the opportunity to correct your record of the written conversation and they didn’t do so. I recently fired someone, and while I wasn’t able to fire them for their truly egregious offenses (which included but were not limited to falsifying records and overt lies about colleagues), we were able to pull it off with a years-long record of every correction, every stated expectation (written or verbal through the follow-ups like I said above), and every violation thereof.

        Also, it kind of sounds like you’d rather coach Tammy more than fire her at this point – the documentation might also help, depending on your unit, if you need to support a low evaluation and/or a PIP, which could support the coaching.

        1. Jean Pargetter Hardcastle*

          Edited to add: I meant to say documenting everything good or bad with both Tammy and Beth. I know Tammy’s the one you mentioned not being able to fire, but it also sounds like Beth is working in some ways that need correction.

          I actually do the written recap of every meeting I lead where there aren’t minutes/a note-taker because it’s just useful to be able to refer back to, regardless of whether it ends up in a coaching file someday.

    5. Jackie Daytona, Regular Human Bartender*

      Yeah, if firing is not on the table at the moment, look at what options are on the table. For the government I work for, this could include reduction in pay for a set time period, suspension, or demotion. In my experience, often, the underperforming employee would file an appeal of the action with the agency responsible for adjudicating appeals, but then in settlement discussions, agree to leave voltuntarily if the disciplinary stuff came out of their official HR file (which they want because other hiring agencies would look at that if the underperforming employee applied with another agency).

    6. Spiritbrand*

      Although, if you demote Tammy and then once again promote someone other than Beth, I don’t think that is going to improve the situation at all.

  2. Oaktree*

    Too often,people say they can’t fire people because they don’t want to go through the tedious steps of documenting problems.

    1. Lydia*

      This. Even in a union shop, firing someone isn’t an impossible thing to do. You just have to follow the process for doing it. It is tedious, but it’s because someone, somewhere, abused the process and now there’s some form of accountability in place.

      1. Selina Luna*

        In my opinion, I’m glad unions have implemented this type of process. I’ll grant that sometimes it means that someone who should be fired won’t be. However, sometimes it means that my husband, who did his job and had an administrator lie about him, won’t be randomly fired because this administrator believes his job is to “clean house,” not to actually discipline students.

        1. But Of Course*

          This is taking it off track, but I like reinforcing this when I see it. As a unionized employee who works for a union, we want employers to fire bad employees. We just want them to follow the mandated process. It is incredibly common how often “we can’t fire anyone with a union” means “the contract we agreed to means the process is long.” We want employers not to be able to fire people because they’re having a bad day, not to never be able to fire.

          1. Selina Luna*

            Yes. And in my husband’s and my union, it means that the person trying to start a paper trail has to have evidence (we’re teachers; evidence is easy to come by). Also, some things are immediately fireable for teachers.

          2. CrossWord*

            I had a truly terrible boss, and admin was getting all kinds of pushback from the union about her path towards termination. It wasn’t until someone brought up that her employees were ALSO union members who deserved protection that the ball got rolling on the union’s end.

    2. NothingIsLittle*

      OP says that the problems don’t rise to the firing level, which is different from not wanting to document issues/follow through. If the problems don’t violate any policies and Tammy just isn’t great, but is meeting minimum requirements, then OP is probably right that there’s not much recourse (at least when I worked government positions that was true).

    3. Anon for this*

      Or face a wrongful dismal case.

      Where I am if a government employee is fired, as opposed to resigns with agreements and usually setttlement, the union is obligated to file a wrongful dismissal case. The unions lose around 90% of wrongful dismissal cases. The unions only win consistently if the employer can’t show any records of issues with the employee, never mind actually following the agreed upon procedure.

      I’m not sure why you’d keep a terrible employee forever over 5 or 7 days in court. The expense of this is why the resignations with settlements are offered. Courtsd are heavily on the employer, any employer’s, side.

      1. MigraineMonth*

        If the union is required to file a wrongful dismissal case, I wouldn’t be surprised if the union was relieved to lose most of them. Unions are supposed to protect their members’ rights under the contract; that doesn’t mean they’re supposed to win.

        It’s like how a court of law is supposed to protect a defendant’s rights even if they are guilty. As one judge put it, “those ‘technicalities’ are your rights.”

      2. TM*

        Ugh, this reminds me of the days when unions where I live spent by far the majority of their time in court suing *each other* over membership jurisdiction. While we’ve had a lot of legislative undermining of union rights and powers in the ensuing decades, one useful change is that now any one can join any union that will have them. In practice, unions generally only accept members in certain occupational domains, but there’s no more suing each other in court where there’s overlap.
        Anyway, if a union I was in burned up time and energy by rote to contest everything as a “wrongful dismissal”, I’d be pretty annoyed about where my dues were going. Every member should absolutely have the right to have the grounds for their firing reviewed thoroughly and to legal representation. And then to receive realistic advice about how valid the firing was on procedural grounds. Court as a last resort.

  3. Citymouse*

    Tammy may bot have been a great hire but it seems like Beth is showing she wouldn’t have been a great hire either.

    1. ChaoticNeutral*

      I had this same thought. It seems like a lot of Beth’s behavior is still rooted in her disappointment in not getting the promotion. I would say the LW would have a lot of leeway in saying “It is time to move past that.”

      1. AKchic*

        That’s my thought, too.

        I get being disappointed that you didn’t get the promotion you wanted. I get being upset when not only did you get turned down for a promotion, they hired an outsider and they don’t appear to be a stellar hire, but maybe similarly matched or almost as skilled as you are, so really, it could be a personality mismatch between you and the hiring manager (which brings the “is the newbie a friend of the hiring manager” questions into play).

        But after so long, and with a secondary manager now in play, it’s long past time to move on from this grudge. Either get over it or find another job yourself, Beth, because all you’re currently doing is hurting yourself.

    2. juliebulie*

      Yes! I don’t think Beth is aware of the impression she is giving. At all. (But I don’t blame her for being frustrated!)

      1. JustCuz*

        Yeah, turning down an internal candidate for an external one who turns out to be pretty crappy has boosted moral exactly 0 times in the history of the world. Honestly, Beth is probably the most vocal and just needs to hear “this isn’t going to change so lets plan a way forward”, with the rest of them feeling the exact same way and remaining quiet. So its good to have that discussion with Beth, and then get a lot more into Tammy’s world and live there for awhile.

        1. Kristen*

          Based on the OP I’m not sure if Tammy is “pretty crappy” or just an average-to-okay manager who has room to grow and get better. I don’t think Beth would have been happy with anything less than the most amazing manager in the world, and maybe not even then. “Can’t fire” could mean “don’t want to do all the legwork to document” but could also mean “adequate at the job, not a rockstar but certainly not bad enough to fire.”

          1. Toxic Workplace Survivor*

            This was my read of the OP letter as well: Tammy is average-to-ok and possibly has challenges with second-level manager stuff like better delegation/explanations of why things matter/creating processes to make up for your own weak spots as opposed to nuts and bolts stuff. It matters, and yet you can be a little more forgiving with a newer manager. They are harder things to master and harder things to pitch as PIP material.

            Still not impossible to fire but maybe more “I’m keeping my eye on her and how quickly she is learning.”

            I’d be keeping a careful eye on it though and maybe seeding any concerns to my own bosses early on to start building a case. Meanwhile the Beth nightmare needs addressing too.

          2. Also-ADHD*

            Sounds Tammy became average-to-okay over some amount of time and with coaching, but may have been crappy at the beginning?

    3. Lady Danbury*

      This! While being disappointed at being passed over for a promotion is always understandable, Beth’s reaction to that disappointment is likely a sign that management was correct in not promoting her (which doesn’t mean that Tammy was the right hire either). This is exemplified by the fact that she is already a manager and thus held to a higher standard of behavior than an individual contributor.

      1. Citymouse*

        Beth needs to understand that her behavior would torpedo any chances she has of advancement in this organization in the future. As it is, Beth would need to reverse course rapidly and maintain that for years now to have any chance.

        1. Snow Globe*

          Yes! I was just thinking that if Tammy handed in her resignation tomorrow, Beth would expect to be her replacement. Given how she’s been acting, I doubt the LW would want to promote her, and that would be one more disappointment for Beth to complain about.

    4. Strive to Excel*

      My immediate thought was “Fire both of these people”. I know I’m being uncharitable to Beth. She has legitimate reasons for being disappointed. But even so, I have shared offices with Oscar the Grumps before and it drives me up the wall. Especially when, in their grumpiness, they focus only on all the things that irritate them specifically in the office rather than considering how things impact a whole office.

      Especially since hey, it’s not Tammy’s fault Beth got passed over! Based on OP’s letter, it sounds like Tammy applied for and got hired by the company same way anyone would. It’s possible that between OP’s predecessor hiring her and OP starting she did things to cause bad blood between them, but it sounds like she’s at least trying to improve things.

      1. Festively Dressed Earl*

        Beth’s feelings are legitimate and understandable, but what she’s doing with those feelings is not. There’s no shame in disappointment, frustration, or professionally expressing that to your higher-ups once, twice at the outside. But Beth is letting her disappointment drive the bus; she’s been hounding her grandboss about this for more than a year and is dragging down her coworkers and direct reports as well.

      2. Glen*

        I think you’re being more uncharitable to Tammy than Beth. Tammy is putting in the effort to do better and has improved her reputation. Beth, meanwhile, is doing her level best to undermine that effort. One of them had a rough start in a role they presumably weren’t as prepared for as they thought. The other is being actively malicious. Not sure how mediocre but acceptable job performance combined with a good-faith (and apparently successful!) effort to improve is worse than holding an extended grudge against a colleague and spreading your bad attitude to your direct reports. Especially when it doesn’t sound like Beth is especially high performing either, in fact she’s described as “pretty mediocre”. I’m also sympathetic to the irritation of dealing with a less than stellar colleague, but it seems to me that being unpleasant and working to undermine your colleague is a far worse behaviour.

    5. Ellis Bell*

      It seems wild to me that she actually thought she was in line for a promotion. Keeping a handle on your feelings and not hectoring management is bottom rung level of professional.

      1. MigraineMonth*

        This entire letter reminds me more of my niblings squabbling than a professional workplace. “She’s not good at her job, but also I just don’t like her as a person” is a wild thing to say about one’s boss *to one’s grandboss.* It seems like neither of these people should be in management!

        1. Glen*

          I’m not sure Tammy shouldn’t, she’s had a rough landing but is putting in the effort to improve. Doesn’t sound like she’s playing Beth’s games.

    6. Turquoisecow*

      Yeah if her misery is spilling onto her subordinates then she’s not currently being a great manager either!

    7. Tony Rodriguez*

      Get your Code of Conduct, get HR involved, and start your documentation trail. You promote what you permit, and this has gone on far too long. The fact that Beth isn’t already on “Written Warning #3” concerns me. Just reading about her behavior is exhausting. These types of workplace disciplines (bad attitudes vs poor performance) are the hardest to undertake as a manager but they are also the most necessary. Get busy and good luck!

      1. bamcheeks*

        Right! Usually even if there isn’t a specific “X is failing to meet criteria 4 of their job description” you can point to, there’s a generic list of behaviours or a code of conduct which includes “treat others with respect” “uphold high standards of professionalism” or something. Find that and hold Beth to it!

    8. Also-ADHD*

      I think how true this is depends on things the LW hasn’t shared and may not even know (b/c LW came in later), such as 1) why Beth was passed over and how she reacted at the time, 2) how bad Tammy was before coaching (including before LW’s tenure), 3) why Tammy was hired despite not being a great hire (i.e. was Beth passed over for a nepotism or bias situation and then mistreated for months or years before LW arrived on the scene, only to be told “Well, I’ll try but there’s not much I can do” by LW).

      I think Beth may have been a perfectly good hire at the time, but the relationship within the org has been soured. Or she may not have been and there may have been very good reasons she was passed over.

      What I see here is LW has 2 bad things breaking in opposite directions:

      Tammy is bad at her job (just not bad enough to fire in some environments) and shouldn’t have been hired for it, but she’s at least being performative in responding to coaching. She may even be responding to coaching truly and the relationships with other staff may be truly improving (or it may be that they just don’t care so much and have disconnected better than Beth). So that’s easier for LW but not necessarily ringing as true improvement based on how LW describes and it sounds like it took a long time, all of which Beth was suffering during with no real retribution or recompense or consideration (often true at orgs, but Beth still gets to feel that).

      Beth is very negative and dwelling on the situation, because she is truly invested in staying or whatever. She really shouldn’t have stayed. She probably was a better employee, with better capabilities and energy before all this happened. She needs to look inward and address that and then decide what will make her happy. (I get that this is maybe not the easiest market to do that in, though, unfortunately.) Beth is harder on LW but not necessarily a worse issue.

      Beth has basically realized her situation will not get better, and she’s just done masking the pain. Where it has real impact and LW can communicate that (i.e. it’s impacting Beth’s team or performance, not just Tammy’s feelings or LW’s feelings), I bet Beth improves immediately if conveyed. What I think Beth has given up on caring about are LW’s feelings (since LW can’t fire people, and Beth isn’t getting anywhere, why bother?) and Tammy’s feelings. And in this environment, she’s not incentivized to care for those things. No one has cared for hers properly for a long time.

      Though if Tammy was not that bad or it was not that long before LW came in and started coaching, some of this is Beth being overly dramatic. But I get it. In the environment LW describes, Beth probably spent some time trying to deal with it, realized no one cared about Tammy’s performance, and is reasonably bitter. What LW has done might feel like too little, too late. But that doesn’t mean Beth was always a bad choice for the other position or that she can’t handle her emotions when needed, as much as it means there’s literally no reason to bother to do so here.

      1. Seal*

        I’ve been in Beth’s situation and what Also-ADHD describes is more or less what happened to me. While I was disappointed to have been passed over for a number of reasons, I had a backup plan and was already applying elsewhere. I planned to stay where I was until I had a new job lined up and play nice with the new director. Problem was, not only was the new director in way over their head, they were a tyrant and a bully to boot who was screaming at people by the end of their second week. Things only got worse from there. Between the bullying and blatant disregard for policy, especially those involving the budget, I finally had to go to HR. They tried to tell me that me that my concerns weren’t valid and I was trying to sabotage the director because I didn’t get their job. I found out later that they had quietly disciplined the director for the very issues I brought to their attention. After that, I stopped pretending I wasn’t miserable.

        I got run out of that place 6 months later; within the next year three quarters of the staff had left. Guess I wasn’t the only one who was miserable.

        1. Seal*

          One more factor – there was a small and vocal minority amongst the staff who were ecstatic that I got passed over. They were all young, early career, and thoroughly convinced that with their inherent superiority and intellect they should be running the department. Those of us with years of experience, multiple degrees, and extensive lists of publications, presentations, and awards generally rolled their eyes at them. Occasionally one of us would offer to serve as a mentor (which the all REALLY needed), but they were never interested; in fact one of them told staff member who offered “what could I possibly learn from you?” (I believe the correct answer is manners and humility”).

          At any rate, I was one of the few people who insisted they do the work we were paying the to do and otherwise held them accountable, as I do with all my staff. Like all master manipulators, they could be very funny and charming to your face which endeared or disarmed colleagues who didn’t know. When the announcement was made about the new director they went out for drinks. Naturally, they made a beeline to the new director, who positively lapped the attention. I don’t know what finally got through to them, but once the mass exodus hit a critical mass they mostly clammed up. The one thing they did talk about was how much it sucked to work there after all of the more experienced staff left. Sad thing was they would have had everything they claimed to want at work had they not done more listen than talking. The irony was of course lost on them.

      2. commensally*

        Yes, the fact that Beth didn’t “give up” and show most of the problem behaviors LW is identifying until after the big meeting with LW says to me that Beth was, in fact, doing a pretty good job hiding and controlling her feelings.

        And something that happened at that meeting made her think it wasn’t worth it anymore – that nothing was being done to improve the situation, or that none of her efforts to keep up the facade were actually doing any good, or that she’s on her way out regardless so she doesn’t care any more, or even that being quiet in meetings to keep the peace is the best way to follow the guidelines set out in the meeting. Or maybe in the meeting she heard that nothing is being done about Tammy because she’s the only one complaining to Tammy’s boss, so she’s stopped trying to buffer her subordinates’ complaints in hopes that will actually make a difference. I’ve definitely seen situations where a supervisor is handling all the complaints about the next level up from their subordinates, and then gets treated like they’re the only one with a problem. It’s really hard to say.

        But whatever it was that made Beth stop trying seems like something that happened at that meeting – not when Tammy was hired! – so that’s where LW should be looking.

  4. (not that) Beth*

    Is there any world where you can rearrange Beth’s position so she doesn’t report directly to Tammy? If it’s possible, having them see each other less might loosen things up a little.

    But ultimately Alison is right. You’re working with Tammy on her issues; if Beth’s misery is impacting work (which it sounds like it is, if she’s refusing to participate in meetings and potentially dumping on her direct reports), you have room to manage her on that. But ultimately, if you can’t enact any meaningful consequences for problem performers, this kind of issue is going to be a recurring problem for you–even if Tammy and Beth clean up their acts, there’ll eventually be another problem performer that you don’t really have the power to manage.

    What would be actionable as problem performance in your organization? What’s the bar for potentially firing someone, vs putting them on a PIP that you expect them to eventually pass, vs giving them a poor annual review and a low raise, vs having a stern conversation with them? I’m crossing my fingers you have more power here than you realize.

    1. FashionablyEvil*

      I don’t really love this solution because it effectively rewards Beth and validates her approach.

      1. Ellis Bell*

        I could still see it working if it as paired with a very serious talking to about this being a fresh start she can’t mess up.

    3. Charli (does this make me "That Charli"? I kinda like that...)*

      I love your name given the circumstances. :)

  5. Trudy's Blue Summer's Dress*

    The LW themselves say multiple times that these things don’t come close to being a fireable offense. Yet the first two comments and even part of the answer suggested that.

    I think LW knows their own org!

    1. Just a Pile of Oranges*

      Unless they’ve done it before, it’s actually understandable that LW might not know the procedures for having someone let go. Knowing your org and knowing the exact requirements for firing aren’t the same thing.

    2. Binky*

      Yeah not being not a great hire or a “strong” manager isn’t generally a firing offense. If Tammy is average, she’s not going to be fired. It really sounds like the problem is Beth not getting past her disappointment and taking it out on Tammy in a really unprofessional way. It sounds like Tammy is putting in the work and responding to coaching appropriately, especially if the rest of her team is warming to her. This is a Beth problem.

        1. Binky*

          That was Beth, not Tammy.

          “And while Beth’s behavior also isn’t great now and her performance has slipped down to pretty mediocre…”

        2. Trudy's Blue Summer's Dress*

          That was Beth, not Tammy. “Beth’s behavior also isn’t great now and her performance has slipped down to pretty mediocre,”

        3. Plus+*

          It says “Beth’s behavior also isn’t great now and her performance has slipped down to pretty mediocre”

      2. amoeba*

        Yeah, this. I’m actually a bit confused by all the people who kind of seem to imply Beth is in the right here? I mean, all we have heard about Tammy is that she “isn’t a strong manager” and “wasn’t the best hire” but is apparently also improving due to coaching. I read that more as “fulfilling expectations, but not amazing”, which in my world is a) no reason to fire anybody (especially as she’s actually working on it!) and b) *definitely* no reason to behave like Beth. I really didn’t see much of “two employees not getting along” in the letter – more “one employee decided to sabotage her new boss out of jealousy”!
        Also, I wonder how “not a strong leader” might be correlated with the fact that at least one of her direct reports was apparently openly hostile from day one – certainly not an easy situation to thrive in!

        1. Ted Lass was fiction*

          Agreed. Its hard to judge Tammy as a manager when a key member of her team (Beth) is actively working against her being successful and believes that they (Beth) are unfireable (because if her skip-level boss beleives that then Beth definately believes that). Even Ted Lasso had the ability to trade / release players that would not respond to coaching.

        2. Also-ADHD*

          The fact that LW says she has spent so much time coaching Tammy and kind of acknowledged Tammy was a bad hire, to me, suggests Beth was initially “right” about Tammy. From LW’s position, Beth is more of a problem because she’s the in-your-face-deal-with-me problem, but Tammy is actually a more insidious problem, and I think Alison is right to be careful not to hold Beth to higher standards than Tammy.

          LW is actively coaching Tammy. She says, “I have worked on coaching her around some specific behaviors that I know bother her staff and she is doing a little better there.” That’s AFTER a long time of whatever Tammy does wrong and after noting Tammy is a bad hire and not great at her job.

          Beth is sliding into mediocrity, but Tammy was already mediocre at best and that’s not fireable here, so why shouldn’t she? It sounds like Beth dropped the more intense behaviors after LW created clarity and made it clear she wouldn’t be taking any real action to address Tammy (which may be the right call, but still Beth did accept it, she just isn’t happy). Beth seems to have followed their agreements from the meeting where LW brought them together, but the only big red flag I see where LW needs to coach Beth is anything impacting Beth’s team (though LW says “might” to that and seems to be guided by her own feelings — she hasn’t dug into why some of them feel negatively and she needs to).

          Beth not speaking in meetings unless spoken to and not looking happy aren’t really even necessarily coachable *unless* there’s some benefit to being coached (i.e. if Beth is not getting anything out of it and is nowhere near being fired, why accept that coaching when you know performance isn’t really a big deal, based on the Tammy Example).

          This is a weird one, where I see Tammy’s impact probably being stronger on actual performance / org outcomes but Beth’s impact being personally stronger on LW’s day to day. LW’s day to day matters to LW, but you can’t make your management decisions based on who you like / dislike / gives you frustration and then say Beth can’t, unless you’re pulling a power trip (hard to do in government and probably not a good option for LW). I read LW as wanting everyone to get along / be relatively happy, and coming from that mindset, so the fact that she gives so many small hints about how much Tammy sucks really made me think Tammy sucks.

          Besides slightly degrading in performance (but only to mediocre which is totally acceptable in this environment per LW), I’m not really seeing what in Beth’s current behaviors is valid for a “write up” like some people are saying. The past behaviors, maybe, but it sounds like other staff — not just Beth — were unhappy with Tammy in the past and there’s some credence to the coaching Tammy has needed even to get to mediocre here. Beth is just the loud voice shouting about it, but it sounds like LW has basically admitted she had a point. LW just is sick of hearing it, which is understandable because LW didn’t create this situation either and just walked into it!

          The whole environment is the problem, of course, but LW can’t change that. The org doesn’t demand excellence, and that is what it is. (They can demand civility, but it sounds like Beth is being civil, just not warm / cordial / glossing over her feeling of unhappiness.) Some orgs do demand you hide your feelings in Beth’s situation here, but they also don’t have “Well, we can’t fire for mediocrity” as a core tenet.

          1. Ted Lass was fiction*

            I suggest we consider whether Beth’s performance as a manager is medicore or actually worse. Her output may be when it comes to work product, but as a manager / leader, her attitude is malignent to the organization’s culture and standard of performance. Her peers and team can observe her active and passive behavior, and by not addressing it, the organization is showing it will accept mediocre output and poor attitudes. Overtime that will poison the culture. Beth may have been right — but it does not matter at this point — either she or Tammy need to go, and possible even both.

            I feel for the letter writer as it sounds like the LW does not have that option.

            1. Also-ADHD*

              We don’t actually know Beth is managing badly. We know her employees are complaining (but not if she was doing the escalations before and then let them start themselves, not if they are unhappy with org / higher leadership things, etc.) Beth’s employees don’t seem to be complaining *about* Beth. LW thinks Beth potentially infected them, but really, we don’t know that, and LW has admitted there is issue enough with Tammy that needs (and even more that was coached previously) fixing that I think it’s unclear what Beth is doing, besides just becoming more mediocre, which LW has openly stated is fine to do and Tammy is evidence of. Beth’s performance still appears to be “above” Tammy’s by LW’s admission on the performance scale; Beth just is more unhappy.

          2. Olive*

            Being mediocre at a role is not an “insidious problem”. While it’s unfortunate that Tammy didn’t have stronger abilities, needing coaching as a new manager is very common and not a moral failing.

    3. MigraineMonth*

      Except “we can’t fire people here” or “the union prevents us from firing anyone” or “they’re a minority so we can’t fire them” are pervasive beliefs across companies that on closer inspection usually turn out to be false. So in cases like this–when one or two employees are affecting the productivity and culture of an entire department–it makes sense to ask, “Are you really sure?” (or at least to point out that it’s nearly impossible to solve without that leverage).

        1. Xanna*

          I work in a union shop in a government environment in CANADA, and even I struggle to believe that it could possibly be impossible to demote/reassign/fire someone because “government”.

          I think the skepticism is reasonable ngl

          1. Trudy's Blue Summer's Dress*

            In the US as may be the case in Canada, there are so many different gov’t agencies – local, state, federal.. they may have different policies/procedures when it comes to firing. I’m sure there are some parts of govt that it can be done more easily than others. LW might be in one of the parts where it can’t

            1. It's Me*

              Agreed. I was applying for a position in my county government, and the person interviewing me flat-out said that if I passed probation, I couldn’t be fired.

              That let me know the type of coworkers I’d have and, coupled with the low pay, I passed on the position during the interview.

        2. Decima Dewey*

          It can be different in government, but it can be done.

          In my city, when an opening for a promotion occurs, people on the promotion list are asked if they’re interested. Union rules are that workers who are interested are each paired with another worker. For every opening, there is a pair. Interviews are done and one person from each pair gets the promotion. In this case, Tammy got the promotion, Beth did not.

          Once promoted, the promoted worker is on probation for 6 months. They can be demoted from the job at any time during probation. After probation is done, demotion can occur if problems with the promoted worker are documented. Given the timeline, if Tammy was going to be demoted, it would have been up to OP’s predecessor.

          FWIW, some managers hear “document” and just say something to the promoted worker, without putting it in writing. Without the paper trail, nothing is going to be done.

          It’s been long enough that Beth should accept what’s happened, or seek a transfer. Those are her choices if she doesn’t want to work under Tammy.

        3. RC*

          On the other hand, US federal government positions were supposed to be secure and basically unfireable, buuuuuuuuut….

          (not that I’m suggesting LW take wildly unethical and likely illegal steps to fire someone)

        4. Six for the truth over solace in lies*

          Especially with hiring freezes. If they can get one or both of them fired, can they do with no one in this positions for weeks? Months? Years? Indefinitely? Is being down one or two people for an unknown period of time better or worse than the current situation?

    4. (not that) Beth*

      I don’t think it’s that unusual for “my organization doesn’t typically fire someone for this kind of behavior” and “I have the leeway to decide this is fireable if I think it’s worth it–it’d be tedious and maybe a little hard-ass for my org, but maybe I should start the documentation/process anyways” to both be true.

    5. Cmdrshprd*

      “I think LW knows their own org!”

      Eh I’ve worked with lots of people that did not know their/our own companies/organizations on various rules/policies/procedures/culture. So just flagging something/double checking is not unreasonable.

      1. WellRed*

        How many letters do we see from people who can’t see dysfunction (for example$ until they leave?

        1. Trudy's Blue Summer's Dress*

          I don’t think it’s that LW doesn’t see the dysfunction, it’s that if it’s nearly impossible to fire someone, there’s just not much they can do about it

      2. Hannah Lee*

        Sometimes it’s not an official policy of the organization.

        But if you’ve got one person in the chain of command who is a “bad breath is better than no breath” manager, or if the organization has a freeze on hiring replacements, it might as well be.

        Ask me how I know.

    6. Snarkus Aurelius*

      But it’s still true that the LW should challenge and examine the idea that nothing can be done. As I noted, it’s very possible that whoever in HR gave the LW this assessment may very well be wrong or (more likely) doesn’t want to go jump through hoops to fire someone because that’s almost always what the subtext is.

    7. RIP Pillowfort*

      There can be a lot of misconceptions about the process necessary for firing someone in a govt. role. Heck I’ve heard employees in my own agency that thought that they could never be fired for mediocre work who eventually were fired or saw the writing on the wall with the PIP they got put on. I’ve also seen people fired on the spot for really egregious things!

      There are also managers here that bemone the same type of employee like they don’t have any options to address performance. We do! They just don’t want to go through the process.

      1. Trudy's Blue Summer's Dress*

        There are so many different government orgs though, the processes are also going to be different. So i’m sure there are many where the firing can happen as you say. It’s also possible that LW’s isn’t like that

        1. Xanna*

          Often it’s a self perpetuating problem though. If a random HR person tells me early in my management tenure that “firing just isn’t really a thing here,” then it’s likely I’m going to proceed like that’s a fact, even if the reality is a lot more nuanced, and someone in leadership pushing for more accountability and more aggressive management of underperformers could change the status quo.

          I think it’s hugely common for orgs that “don’t fire,” being that way for culture reasons rather than legal ones, which is why “make sure your lay of the land on this is actually accurate,” is a reasonable piece of advice here.

          1. Trudy's Blue Summer's Dress*

            I think what LW is saying is that what Beth and/or Tammy have done is nowhere near the bar for even starting the process. I assume if LW has a report three levels below her, she’s fairly high up herself and might have a good idea of what is/isnt possible

        2. Cmdrshprd*

          I think we might be defining hard and impossible different.

          You need to fill out 30 TPS reports on a persons shortcomings, and have it documented over 3 years to even consider firing them might be very hard and tedious, but it is not impossible.

          No one is saying that OP is wrong, just that OP should revaluate their thinking and really check if it really is “x can’t be done/is impossible” or will it just take a lot of work on my part that I would rather not do, but in the end could be for the better. Alison acknowledge that the effort required might be too much that its not worth it, but just saying double check X is not unreasonable.

          I know from personal experience a lot of time people avoid doing things that seem hard initially, but in the long run end up being less work/stress and then people wonder why they didn’t do it sooner.

          1. Trudy's Blue Summer's Dress*

            In that case, I might start by seeing if Beth can be moved to a different team. That’s was also mentioned by the LW as something that can’t be done, but maybe it’s the same dynamic of they could if they really wanted to

    8. 1600*

      The LW also specified they ARE working with Tammy on coaching them to a higher performance standard! Not sure why everyone is assuming they are not doing that.

      1. Glen*

        what bothers me more are the people saying Tammy, who isn’t great at her job but is actively working to improve, is a bigger problem than Beth. Beth is also apparently quite mediocre and behaving in a wildly inappropriate way, up to and including undermining her own manager to her direct reports. Not being great at your job is not necessarily a firing issue, especially when you’re putting in the effort and improving, but actively working to make your workplace worse absolutely is

    9. Kelsey's grammar*

      Also, assuming this is the US government–they’ve got a lot going on right now?? So uh, they maybe don’t want to be firing “okay but not great” employees right now because they KNOW those positions won’t ever be backfilled??? Like, it’s not even a question of “well at least he saves his murders for off-work hours” performance evals–we’re talking about someone who has improved with coaching (Tammy) versus someone who STILL has such a bug up her butt about being passed over for an outside hire that she is letting it trickle down to her own reports and poison the rest of the office, affect her own performance, etc (Beth).
      If you were able to let anyone go, then hell yeah, turf Beth right away and keep coaching Tammy. Or let them both go (wilding!) and refill both roles, hoping you made the right call, times 2.
      Since you can’t really get rid of anyone (and maaaaaybe you wouldn’t be able to refill the role if you did—again I’m only speculating there), then absolutely keep Tammy. And absolutely have some more 1-on-1 meetings with Beth that she needs to get her act together like, yesterday. No arguments from her, no more stalling. Just her going to the Act store and getting it. Quote the entire “get your [redacted]” monologues from both Saturday Night Fever and the Rick and Morty episode, “Big Trouble in Little Sanchez” if you have to, if that’s what it takes to get through to her. If she’s going through a mental health thing, she can look into an EAP thing, or talk to her own doctor about resources. If this is all really untenable for her, like she can’t bear the idea of Tammy “winning,” then she can look for a new job. Like everyone else in the world who has to make these judgement calls every day.

      Or, assuming this is the US government, Beth (and the LW) can wait for DOGE to swoop in and eliminate the whole department in its foolish, short-sighted way. Then Beth will no longer have to deal with Tammy’s horrible betrayal of stealing “her” promotion, Tammy won’t have to deal with Beth’s constant resentment and attitude problem, Beth’s underlings won’t have to deal with being shortchanged by a terrible manager, and the LW won’t have to keep dithering about any of this! Everyone wins! In the way where everyone loses horribly!

      1. Ginger Cat Lady*

        Eh, “government agency” could be anything. Any country. Any state. Any Province. Any county/parish/canton etc. Any city.
        Assuming this is the US government is a pretty big leap.

        1. Dolphins*

          So if it’s not the US, that potentially takes away the chaotic spectre of DOGE:

          —canning everyone in the office, LW included, within 5 weeks thus “solving” all of the LW’s problems (in a horrible way)
          —but it also does potentially allow for the fact that hey, maaaaaaaaaybe Beth could be fired eventually with the right documentation.

          And if she can’t, then Beth still needs to receive several come-to-Jesus talks with the LW. She can’t just keep moping around the office to the point of making everyone else—including her own reports—miserable. And terrible at their own jobs. Tammy is not actually the issue here. And Beth needs to stop acting like Tammy is the Iranian yogurt to her own emotional hang ups.

  6. Snarkus Aurelius*

    I work for the government too, and I understand where the LW is coming from on the firing issue.

    At my job, it really depends on which HR person you get when you need to do something. When you want to fire someone, the amount and quality of evidence all in the eye of the individual HR beholder because fired employees can appeal and potentially get their jobs back.

    I had an employee who committed waste, fraud, and abuse of federal money, and we had piles of written evidence and feedback from a dozen employees who were willing to come forward. But HR still said we couldn’t fire her because “even though you produced multiple emails to Employee saying not to do X, there’s no evidence that she read and understood the direction she was given. She can still claim ignorance in an appeal.” When I pointed out she was knowingly forging approvals on expense forms and telling people she had spending authority when she didn’t, HR said, “we don’t have a written policy against that practice. It’s Fiscal’s fault, not hers, because they believed her and didn’t verify what she said.” The overall theme of these conversations was that my employee had zero accountability for her behavior because everyone else was supposed to keep her in check. At one point, I got frustrated and asked, “what CAN this woman do to get fired? It seems like nothing!”

    My employee eventually quit, and years later I told this story to another HR person who was horrified and completely disagreed with her colleague’s assessment. Turns out the original HR person assumed that any appeal has a 100% chance of being overturned, which isn’t true.

    So I think the LW really needs to dig into the information she has on termination. Just because there are employee protections in place doesn’t mean nothing can ever be done even though HR sometimes prefers it that way.

    1. Retired State Worker*

      Very much this – a successful firing in my state’s government agencies takes literal years of work before it can be completed. Even if an employee is caught red-handed stealing (e.g., literally hauling out copper from a worksite and loading it in their personal vehicle), it still takes a whole lot of time and effort to terminate them.

      This is the result of civil service protections that prevent a new incoming administration from handing out state jobs as patronage plums after firing all the prior staff, so there are valid reasons for the limitations, though they do not seem to have worked out very well at the federal level. But it truly sucks in a situation where a manager has an underperforming employee, because the manager has to be willing to jump through an incredible number of hoops and spend a whole lot of time to finalize a termination.

      To the OP, I strongly urge you to work with your agency’s HR staff to put together a PIP (or whatever acronym your state uses for a performance improvement plan) for Beth, and to commit to spending the required time to see it through. Either the PIP will push her to straighten up her act, or it’ll be the first of the many, many steps you’ll need to take to terminate her. Good luck, and be patient – you’ll need it.

    2. Anon for Today!*

      Yes. At a state university and a colleague of mine had a direct report who was insubordinate and refused to do parts of their job because they simply didn’t want to (this was all documented in Teams chats). They also had tardiness and absentee issues which they “solved” through time card fraud. After six months of this and my colleague reaching out repeatedly to HR for guidance, the employee was finally put on a PIP, and when they didn’t meet the PIP, HR extended the deadlines instead of letting my colleague fire them. They eventually resigned, but in the resignation letter, said they would resign UNLESS my colleague gave them “accommodations” which included going on a three week unpaid vacation they already had planned (that started the next week – that my colleague didn’t know about) and re-instituting their work from home privileges (that were revoked as part of the PIP that they didn’t pass). I put “accommodations” in quotes because there wasn’t a medical reason… they just didn’t like commuting to work and thought they shouldn’t have to, even though they didn’t do their job (at work or home!).

      The first HR person to be notified about the resignation gave my colleague permission to accept it, so they did. But someone else from HR saw the words “accommodations” and told them to walk back the acceptance and offer a meeting about the “accommodations” because they were terrified about an appeal. My colleague was fed up and told HR they could take over the communications because they were done being undermined. Employee was finally informed that taking a three week European vacation was not an “accommodation” under any version of the law, so they resigned.

      1. Snarkus Aurelius*

        And your HR should have seen right through the employee’s crap when they co-opted a term that’s inextricably linked to the disability community and lawsuits. It’s on par with insisting the Tooth Fairy is Dwayne Johnson in real life.

    4. bamcheeks*

      But you also don’t have to take HR’s first answer as the final one. If “your” HR rep is saying you can’t possibly fire someone who is committing fraud (!!), go and get a second opinion from a different HR rep. Ask you manager left to escalate it. Read the handbook for yourself. Like, this is how bureaucratic organisations function— you sometimes do have to gather evidence and talk to two or three people or escalate stiff through your own management line, but that is still not “impossible”.

      1. MigraineMonth*

        If there’s actual fraud or serious enough illegal activity going on, sometimes you have to go outside of the normal channels and report it as a whistleblower, contact a political representative, or even leak to the press. Extreme measures, but “I was fired after a good-faith whistleblower complaint” is a much better answer to why you left your last job than “I was fired because there was fraud/embezzling happening in my department and I did nothing about it because HR said it wasn’t a firable offense.”

      2. Snarkus Aurelius*

        You’re absolutely right. That goes to show you how inured I was to the crap the HR rep was telling me. The last thing I wanted was for this employee to appeal and get her job back, and I think HR was playing on my fears.

        It seems so stupid to retell it now, but, at the time, in a weird way, HR seemed to make sense even though I never agreed with anything she said.

    5. Ally McBeal*

      Government, man. I have a relative who works in city government for a major U.S. city. Their code of conduct strictly prohibits one member of a married couple from managing their spouse, but no rule exists to prohibit one member of a *dating or engaged* couple from managing their partner. My relative tells me that this loophole blew up pretty spectacularly between two people in their department, but of course the rule still hasn’t been amended to close the idiotic loophole.

      1. Cmdrshprd*

        The obvious and easy solution is they are not “dating” they are just veeeery good friends and roomates……..

  7. Pastor Petty Labelle*

    OP you had a meeting with both Tammy and Beth. You need to have a one on one with Beth and lay it out. Tammy is not going anywhere. Beth can either act like a professional and stop with the martyrdom or she can leave. Those are her choices. What she cannot do is continue to act like doing her job is torture just because Tammy exists. She definitely cannot infect her reports with her attitude either.

    Simple, plain, no softening. Just make it clear this situation is not changing but her reaction to it MUST change.

    1. Murial*

      I don’t know that Op would really benefit from a fake threat. If she knows she can’t be fired, his bluff is dead in the water

      1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        what threat? Beth needs to face reality. She either needs either act professional or decide Tammy remaining is a deal breaker and look elsehwere for work. Because that’s the reality. Her job situation is not changing, Beth has to decide if she can live with it — and it she can’t she needs to remove herself situation.

        OP isn’t threatening anything. She is explaining how the world works to Beth.

        1. Also-ADHD*

          If Beth can continue to act the way she does and not lose her job, that’s the fake threat. Right now, the reality is Beth has a third choice which is act miserable. I’m not saying it’s a good choice, but you’re wrong about how LW’s world works, it sounds like from LW’s description. She can’t actually discipline Beth for this (it sounds like, and I’m not sure you could in many workplaces, depending on impact / what Beth is actually doing — looking miserable and being quiet in meetings are not always great for your professional vibe, but they are not going to get you fired plenty of places).

          LW should look into any impact on Beth’s team, as Alison says, but she can’t hold Beth to be better than mediocre if Tammy isn’t. And you can’t tell someone in an org like this (where you can’t fire without cause) that you will let them go if they don’t look sufficiently happy in meetings.

    2. GammaGirl1908*

      Two things about this:

      1) I 100% agree that this needs to focus on Beth’s behavior, not her expression. It doesn’t really matter that she LOOKS miserable. No one wanted to have their face policed all the time. But it DOES matter that she is behaving in such a toxic and unprofessional manner.

      2) LW needs to decide what the consequences will be for Beth. She needs to adjust her attitude, or … what?

      1. MigraineMonth*

        Are there disciplinary actions available other than firing? Write-ups that might affect future promotional/transfer opportunities? Suspension? Revoking privileges? Demotion?

        I wouldn’t recommend those under other circumstances (if someone’s behaving badly in their current role, they probably will behave worse after demotion), but when you don’t have your most effective tool you might have to use others.

        1. allathian*

          Why should Beth be held to a higher standard than Tammy?

          Let Beth be as miserable as she wants in the meetings where only people her level and higher are present. She’s only hurting herself in the long run, and she’s certainly blown any chances of a future promotion at this government org.

          That said, her behavior towards her reports needs improvement, but as things are she’s not going to take any coaching from Tammy so someone else, maybe the LW, needs to do it.

          At this org, there’s currently no external incentive for Beth to do better, and she apparently doesn’t care that her reputation with the org has tanked.

          That said, letting go of her grudge against Tammy would undoubtedly be the best thing Beth could do for her mental health, but currently she seems committed to carrying it forever.

      2. Also-ADHD*

        What is Beth doing? She expresses an occasional complaint when asked, she keeps quiet most of the time, and she looks miserable. (LW needs to investigate impacts on her team, but so far LW only mentions her team also complains — not about Beth though as far as I can tell, but because Beth seems to allow it.)

        I am not saying there’s not a behavior to address, but LW didn’t give us one as far as I can tell. She addressed the problem behaviors on both sides at the come-to-Jesus meeting, and now things are running the way she asked them to. It sounds like maybe there are some negative comments she can address, but otherwise, we’re talking about policing her face, her sighing, etc. (Before addressing the negative comments completely, I would suggest LW determine if she wants to get any information from Beth on potential issues that are negative and how she wants Beth to convey that, because if she shuts it down, she’s also shutting down communication essentially. Now it may be a “time and place” thing that she should address, and ask for the issues to be raised 1:1 or through a specific channel.)

        1. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

          Stop defending Beth. The LW did mention that Beth has a bad attitude and they see it being copied by Beth’s staff.

          You are ignoring the contents of the letter for some reason. Performing “how awful this all is” for you is a behavior. Refusing to engage in meetings is a behavior. Complaining is a behavior. Giving the silent treatment is a behavior. Her work performance has dropped! These are all concrete facts listed in the letter. Just scroll up.

          1. Mr. B*

            No, everything Also-ADHD said is aligned with the facts in the letter, just not with the opinions the LW has about those facts.

          2. Also-ADHD*

            “Bad attitude” isn’t a behavior. I’m not ignoring the contents of the letter. LW says there’s nothing to discipline Beth for.

            LW says: “And while Beth’s behavior also isn’t great now and her performance has slipped down to pretty mediocre, in the space we work in it doesn’t begin to approach fireable.” This is milder than what she says about Tammy’s performance not being fireable AND she mentions Beth’s has only slipped after Beth essentially gave up trying to get LW to fix Tammy.

            Alison said herself that you can’t hold Beth to a higher standard than Tammy, and I agree that LW can’t. I’m assuming LW is right about the performance standards at her org and assuming Beth’s performance dropped to mediocre in a way that “doesn’t begin to approach” fireable, which LW says as though it’s not even as meriting of coaching as Tammy’s issues.

            1. Jennifer Strange*

              AND she mentions Beth’s has only slipped after Beth essentially gave up trying to get LW to fix Tammy.

              No, she said Beth slipped after being told she couldn’t constantly bring nitpicky complaints to her, especially while ignoring the proper chain of command.

    3. Not Tom, Just Petty*

      What really gets me about this is Beth’s villainizing of Tammy.
      It’s like the spouse who blames the affair partner. Beth isn’t mad at the people who hired Tammy. She she’s mad at Tammy for “stealing” her job.
      ‘But she didn’t. She wasn’t Beth’s peer at the time. She didn’t sneak around and not tell Beth she was applying. She saw a job posting, applied and got the job.
      Beth is indignant. Not following the syllogism.
      Using that model, ask Beth if she thinks THIS will happen:
      Tammy is not great
      Tammy is let go.
      Tammy’s job is open.
      Beth is moved into the role.
      A year long vendetta is not the secret to advancement.

      1. Perfect*

        “Using that model, ask Beth if she thinks THIS will happen:
        Tammy is not great
        Tammy is let go.
        Tammy’s job is open.”

        This. I bet she hasn’t thought it through like that.

        2. Miguel*

          or she has simply given up, sha has been already passed over, for an incompetent manager, her complains resulted in nothing and progress was only done after her manager started getting coached. even the author assumes that her underling are being infected by her negativism, not even putting the possibility that they may have a reson to complain, and Beth is simply not caring anymore.

    4. English Rose*

      Yes, based on Beth’s behaviour, can she not see that even if Tammy left tomorrow for some reason, no-one would think Beth was the right hire to step into Tammy’s shoes, or any equivalent role that might come up? I’m not sure Beth could even recover from this reputationally given how she’s behaving.

      1. Hannah Lee*

        I had a similar situation play out at a previous job, though it was 2 internal candidates.
        It was a really close call between them RE who would be promoted. Both strong candidates but with a slightly different mix of skills and experiences.

        Tosh got the promotion and Donnie reacted similarly to Beth. There was another opening coming up that would be a similar promotion level, just supporting a different geographical area/product line that the director had been thinking Donnie would be great for given his particular background when it opened up 6 months later. But Donnie’s attitude and behavior got him taken out of the running for that. You could argue maybe director should have given Donnie a head’s up about the likely new opening, but given Donnie’s reaction, director kind of dodged a bullet there.

        1. MigraineMonth*

          If Donnie had dealt with his disappointment by immediately finding a job elsewhere, then you could argue the director made a mistake by not letting him know about the upcoming opportunity. I don’t think anyone should look at an adult throwing a tantrum and say, “But with kid gloves this might have been prevented!”

          1. Glen*

            I dunno, I’m seeing quite a few comments here about how Tammy is clearly the “real” problem. Disturbing!

            1. Crepe Myrtle*

              Me too. Maybe Beth wasn’t chosen for the promotion because the hiring manager knew she didn’t have the soft skills for it. And she’s proving that decision was the right one with her behavior now.

    5. rrrrr*

      LW already said Beth and Tammy aren’t doing anything that warrants being fired in the context of where they work.

  8. Murial*

    I did Labour Relations for a few years in a big unionized organization… literally fired no one. Theoretically it could be done, but we had an employee physically assault her boss, admit it was an unprovoked attack, and she wasn’t fired. Apparently a five day suspension was even too much after her grievance was upheld. So… yeah I get where LW is coming from. Yeah people are stuck.

    1. Snarkus Aurelius*

      I know of a guy who got fired for watching porn at a government job. He appealed and won his job back! Turns out that state government entity decided it was cheaper to give him his job back than settle the inevitable lawsuit.

      I do wonder what his defense was though.

      STILL, these horror stories shouldn’t deter people from trying to fire bad eggs. I’ve done it before in government and succeeded!

      1. Paint N Drip*

        I wonder about situations like this… like yeah you have your job back, but is the experience working that job not excruciating?? I guess worst case scenario you have a positive/neutral recommendation and a clean resume to GTFO but I can’t imagine going to work after fighting with your boss or where everyone is talking about your screentime preferences or any other million AWKWARD situations

        1. Murial*

          I don’t think it will come as a surprise, but the boss-assaulter (and the p*rn watcher, I assume) are probably not getting many job offers and have few options. Coworkers are likely to leave though.

          The boss is going to have an excruciating time, that’s for sure.

  9. Just another commenter*

    Right now, it sounds like Beth is no more qualified for Tammy’s role than Tammy is, as far as professional behavior. I’m not sure it’s the time, but maybe it’s the time, to say something like “Right now I’m not seeing what I’d need to see to move you into the Llama Lead position if it came open again.” Maybe that would be more motivating to her? This is, of course, subject to the caveat Alison already gave about not telling her she has to meet a standard that she doesn’t see Tammy having to meet. And of course it’s usually a bad idea to compare people (even though I did above). “This isn’t about whether you are or would have been a better choice than Tammy; it’s about what you can do right now to demonstrate that you’re ready next time an opportunity comes up.”

    1. allathian*

      Yes, this. I don’t think holding Beth to a higher standard than Tammy would be fair, but explicitly telling Beth that based on her current behavior, she wouldn’t be considered for promotion if Tammy quit tomorrow, might get her to moderate it somewhat.

      Sure, Tammy had a hard start as a manager, but she seems to be doing a bit better now, and I seriously doubt she can excel as long as Beth is reporting to her.

      I’m wondering if any of Beth’s reports have quit recently. Being grumpy with the higher-ups wouldn’t be so bad if she managed to be at least professionally neutral with her reports, but because the negativity’s spreading downwards in the hierarchy, she’s undoubtedly dumping negativity on them. Stopping that would be crucial to Beth’s future success at this org.

  10. Balanceofthemis*

    I’ve worked at the local government level, and in my experience mediocre performance was not enough to get someone fired. They would need to drop below mediocre for a sustained period to even get the ball rolling in a PIP, which was required before firing could even be discussed. So I get why the letter writer says she can’t fire either Beth or Tammy, their performance probably really doesn’t warrant it at this point.

  11. Just a Pile of Oranges*

    Beth sure is hanging on to a lot of resentment. Sometimes in orgs that don’t fire people they move them to other teams, is that maybe an option?

  12. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

    I work for a firm in the UK that has a lot of very governmental feel about it (given that our budget comes from the government and the taxpayer largely) and I do know what you mean about the VAST amounts of procedure required to get someone removed from their post for anything short of outright setting fire to the building and hurling managers into the flames.

    But, the biggest regret in my career as a manager was when I didn’t start that process when a member of staff started behaving a bit badly, letting work drop, being hostile to others etc. Because I figured nobody would do anything and the unions would protect him to what was the point.

    He got worse. A lot worse. But it was a gradual trickle downward so nothing I could really point to and go ‘SEE – THAT!’. How could I word ‘don’t be such a condescending know it all and thinking you’re the smartest person in the room’ and ‘stop being a grumpy MFer’. So he became insubordinate.

    It all came to a head one morning. He came in, told a client that they were too stupid to talk to him and then outright punched his coworker in the face ‘for being a disgusting deviant’ (coworker was LGBTQ and not white). Because I’d not documented any of the proceeding behaviour it was an uphill struggle to get rid of this guy.

    And even after he’d been fired, he managed to get a payoff from the company for ‘unfair dismissal’ because he claimed he was under a lot of mental stress and we hadn’t accomodated his struggles.

    Start the paperwork.

    1. Loose Socks*

      I work in HR in government, and I have two employees that run straight to the HR Director every time they are corrected or spoken to about performance issues. They have attempted to open investigations on every supervisor that has had a disciplinary meeting with them, myself included. In the 10 years they have both been here, they’ve chased of numerous employees. And somehow, both are constantly promoted. Both are now the heads of their departments, despite CONSTANT documentation of issues, and a solid history of stirring up issues where there are none.

      I don’t understand this, but now due to their complaints that they are being “prevented from promoting” (to where?!?), we are now being told to implement a new process that would actually make it EASIER for problematic employees to promote, as long as they can interview well!

      1. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

        *shudder of recognition* oh yeah – had that happen in my career too. Really not good memories of the guy who managed to convince HR that having women complain about him being a creep was discriminating behaviour. He ended up being on the exec team (and later fired for embezzlement – not the groping he’d done to every woman in the office though)

    2. Trudy's Blue Summer's Dress*

      That really has nothing to do with LW’s letter though. Calling a client stupid and punching a coworker should be enough to get anyone fired anywhere

      1. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

        The thing is – this whole thing took over a year. The ‘I don’t like this person’ attitude was there from the beginning and then the standard of work dropped, and the dirty looks in team meetings.

        I was saying from my experience that if you don’t at least start doing something you run the risk of when it all blows up having someone higher up than you saying that it was unfair dismissal because nothing had been recorded about the problems from the start.

        So I do think it is relevant.

      2. Great Frogs of Literature*

        No, I think it’s relevant — it shows that documentation may be VERY worthwhile, even if it’s not nearly bad enough that the org would fire for it yet.

        1. Trudy's Blue Summer's Dress*

          Ok yes I get what you mean. That should give credence to the fact that in some places it really is incredibly difficult to let someone go. If KMG had to go trhough all that to fire someone who punched a coworker and insutled a client, who knows how hard it might be for OP here

    3. Lady Danbury*

      As legal counsel at a unionized company, this is the biggest issue that I run into all the time. Managers don’t follow the process to document bad behavior, then finally they get fed up and want to terminate them, but there’s nothing to go on because they haven’t documented it. We have a very specific process that we’re required to follow for terminations do to performance or repeated misconduct (unless it’s gross misconduct) but too often managers think documenting something is automatically meant to be punitive instead of a process that ideally helps the employee to improve the behavior at issue.

  13. Fluffy Fish*

    While I appreciate peoples comments about – are you really really really sure you can’t fire people – unless you have worked for government, I don’t think you can appreciate just how futile it is to try to fire someone at a lot of government orgs.

    As a general rule the behavior has to be egregious. And no we generally can’t do things like give them a poor performance eval so they get a lower raise – raises are very often across the board period what you get is what is offered whether you’re a 2 or a 5.

    So yes its good for OP to see to check in with HR to be sure, but the chances are they really do know what firing someone takes at their agency.

    1. Governmint Condition*

      In some cases, a criminal proceeding for malfeasance on the job is a separate proceeding from firing. In theory, someone could go to prison for corruption on the job and an arbitrator can decide that the conviction was wrongful or that it’s worthy of a lesser punishment and not fire the employee. Of course, you could then fire them for not reporting to work, being that they’re in prison, instead of what they did to get put there. Even if the arbitrator fires them, they might get paid up until that day.

      As to your example of a poor performance evaluation which could block certain types of raises, we can do this IF we wrote a proper performance standard form upon hiring AND can prove they are far from meeting that standard. If the performance standard does not cover the problem behavior, then we can’t rate them unsatisfactory.

    2. Irish Teacher.*

      I don’t know anything about US government roles but I assume that if an organisation has strict rules about documentation, then those rules exist not to make the manager’s life difficult, but to be sure the issues really do reach the threshold for firing and…perhaps the ones with Tammy and Beth don’t.

      Certainly, as a teacher in Ireland, just complaining a lot and being negative and being mediocre at your job would not come anywhere close to reaching the bar.

      And this behaviour isn’t serious enough to fire them for does not mean the behaviour cannot be managed. It sounds like Beth wanted to be promoted. Does she still? If so, her behaviour now is likely to be prohibitive. Would it be possible to have a talk with her along the lines of “I know you’re disappointed you didn’t get that promotion. Are you still interested in applying for promotions? If so, these are the areas in which you’d need to improve in order to increase your chances of success.”

      It sounds like Tammy is making an effort to improve and I wonder if Beth didn’t exist or wasn’t as negative, would the LW still be concerned about Tammy’s performance? I mean, is Tammy objectively underperforming or is just adequate but still developing in her role and her flaws are very much in the LW’s mind because Beth keeps harping on them. These are two very different situations and I’m not sure from the letter which it is.

    3. sometimeswhy*

      And sometimes? You absolutely can if you jump through the hoops AND exec and/or HR are willing.

      It’s different at my org now so I feel safer saying it but for my first [very many, oh so many] years where I am, there were definitely people who were released from service/fired but they were all people who had crossed our executive officer in some way or who were inconveniently ethical.

      I inherited two problem employees but I was also inconveniently ethical so trying to maneuver them out almost cost me my own job. I did, eventually, but both of them left under their own steam because the accountability measures I put in place became unpleasant for them and were irreproachable enough that their complaints about it to my boss, my boss’s boss, the XO, HR, and an employment lawyer didn’t get them anywhere. It took YEARS.

    4. Policy wonk*

      Start giving Beth poor performance evals. One of the biggest problems I’ve seen when supervisors try to put an employee on a PIP or take other action against them is that moment when HR pulls the employee’s file and sees a long string of exceeds expectations and outstanding evals. The person has been a problem for years, but no one wanted the hassle of an employee filing a grievance about their eval, so they avoided that conflict and it comes back to bite. And now HR’s hands are tied. So please start documenting the behavior, including in the annual evals. That might give Beth the message that she needs to shape up or look elsewhere like nothing else will.

      1. Lunch Eating Mid Manager*

        As a longtime bureaucrat/people manager, this is a concrete suggestion that I hope OP acts on. So often, performance evals are just not done, or done in very vague terms. Document in the moment, and then document in annual evals. People REALLY don’t like seeing their poor behavior written in their evaluations – it does recall elementary school discipline “this will go down on your permanent record” – but if you have already documented it in memos, the evals are incredibly useful.

        1. Jennifer Strange*

          How so? Tammy has received coaching and has shown improvement. Beth’s work has slipped to mediocre and she has created a negative environment that has affected at least one of her direct reports. Beth is the one who needs a PIP.

    5. Aggretsuko*

      I work for state government and I was told last week that TEN people were fired from state government for basically being caught as slackers and not doing their jobs well and “being bad apples.” TEN. In a place where you don’t tend to get fired except for assault or getting caught doing forgery or breaking the law.

  14. lost academic*

    I think the comments are already going down the “can there be a way to fire Beth” rabbit hole and I think it’s a bit of a red herring. Unless we hear further from OP, we should assume what is written and what is said is what we know – Tammy is not a strong manager. She is not OP’s best employee. OP didn’t say she was a bad manager, just not strong. She didn’t say she was the worst employee, she didn’t say she wasn’t adequate at the role. She didn’t actually give any indication that she wanted to fire Tammy. (Now maybe she is a bad employee, and maybe OP would just prefer to fire her and hope it’ll solve the issues, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that without more information.)

    Tammy is reportedly coachable and improving. We can certainly assume that will continue. So to me, this is a big Beth problem, and it’s a problem that Beth needs to be told clearly to solve in whatever way will actually resonate with her. I get feeling trapped and defeated in a system but you can’t bring everyone else down with you like Beth is reported to be doing. I’m personally skeptical that firing Tammy creates lasting valuable change with Beth given what OP wrote anyway, because this story is really about Beth’s professionalism at the end of the day. It’s not always going to be easy but it is always necessary.

      1. Retailnomore*

        Maybe neither of them is fireable, but don’t they have things like PIP in government organizations? Certainly if Beth was put on a pip it might change the dynamic.

        1. Fluffy Fish*

          Sometimes but what I usually have seen has been just the annual performance eval. Either way, they don’t really have teeth. So you can rate someone poorly but there’s no consequences. Doesn’t really encourage improvement.

    2. LaminarFlow*

      Yes to all of this. I am very good friends with a woman at my work who has taken on Beth qualities due to being passed over for promotions. I totally understand how disappointing it is to not get a wanted promotion that someone feels that they are the best candidate for. However, having the ability to work through those emotions is part of being an adult with a job.

      My Beth used to be disappointed, and sulk for a while, which I feel is normal and expected. But, her disappointment has escalated to dragging Newly Promoted Person for nitpicky/non-job related things, and refusing to take any sort of direction from Newly Promoted Person. Her behavior was bringing me down, and TBH, the nitpicky critiques of Newly Promoted Person made me lose a little respect for my Beth. I asked her to please find someone else to be her sounding board for this stuff.

      Beth’s behavior (and my friend’s behavior) really shows upper management that they made the right decision in promoting someone else. But, getting the Beths of the world to hear that message is pretty impossible.

      1. Parakeet*

        Yep. At my previous job I was passed over for promotion to management in favor of an external candidate (who was good at some things, less at other things, like most people in most jobs). It stung of course (primarily because I’d missed out on higher pay and because of some of the feedback I got, not the principle of the thing). But you move on! My relationship with that person was totally fine.

        1. allathian*

          I work for a government agency in Finland, and when one of my former managers wanted to go back to being an individual contributor about 18 months before they were due to retire, they went on job rotation to a sister organization for about a year and then returned to do a special project for the department director to ensure that they wouldn’t be managed by a former report, who was promoted as an interim manager.

          The position couldn’t be made permanent until the former manager retired, and only interim managers can be promoted without posting the position externally. So when the position was posted, the whole team thought that the interim manager was a shoo-in because she’d been fantastic and very professional, especially in comparison with the former manager who was mediocre at best (at least she acknowledged her mediocrity given that she decided to quit being a manager).

          The whole team was shocked when we got an external hire. The interim manager was utterly professional in handing over the reins, and before the new hire started, the department director organized a meeting (on Teams, this was in 2020) where we could all thank the interim manager for doing a great job and let off some of our negative emotions about how unfair we felt it was that she didn’t get the job. At the end of the meeting, the interim manager was touched to the point of openly weeping, and most of the reports were a bit teary eyed as well. I can only describe the meeting as cathartic.

          The meeting was fantastic, because when the new hire started, it was like turning a new leaf. This was the reality and it was up to us to make the best of it. The interim manager went on job rotation for about a year to another sister organization, which also helped because she wasn’t there as a constant reminder of what might have been and the new manager was able to make the position her own without the interim manager acting as a constant reminder (if unconscious) of how things were before.

          Then the interim manager returned as a senior IC who was eventually promoted to one of three team leads as the team expanded and was later split into three smaller teams. Then our department director quit for new opportunities and our manager was hired as the new director following the normal hiring process including external candidates, and all the team leads were promoted to managers. Last year there was a consolidation where the three teams became two, and one of the managers decided to quit for other opportunities elsewhere.

          From the perspective of a report, all these changes went as smoothly as could be expected, and the external hire was handled particularly well. We felt heard after the meeting. The new hire was great at the job and proved herself very quickly, which obviously helped eliminate any lingering feelings people might’ve had about the interim manager not getting the job. That also proved conclusively that internal candidates aren’t shoo-ins at my org.

  15. Burnt Out Librarian*

    LW, does your org offer an EAP? Sounds like Beth could benefit from talking this out with someone with a fresh and removed perspective. How you bring this up to her is going to depend on your relationship and how you think Beth will react, but I’d probably approach it as “you seem really stressed about something and I understand you can’t really talk to me about it.” (Because it’s probably about Tammy and she knows now you’re not able to be completely on Team Beth.) Ultimately this seems to be a personal and personality issue, so therapy or counseling may be the best route as opposed to management and setting expectations multiple times.

    I have a colleague who does the same thing during our meetings and I try not to take it personally, but I understand your concern. People with a rotten attitude are not enjoyable to work with or for.

    1. Noni*

      I like this suggestion.

      Also, does the company have any mentorship programs that Beth could get into? It could improve the situation if she had a mentor not in her direct reporting line that could help her explore how to become more competitive should another advancement opportunity open up (because obviously wallowing in bitterness until then isn’t going to do that). The PIP approach to Beth sounds like it would be effective in getting rid of Beth whether by her own volition or not, but if the goal is to rehabilitate an otherwise good but now dejected employee, maybe some positive redirection would be a better approach?

  16. drink*

    I am in a situation similar to one of Beth’s reports, and, frankly, I value Beth’s honesty.

    Sometimes what you need from a manager is someone who says, who acknowledges, “yeah this place is messed up, and we are all doing our best within it, but it’s frustrating as heck,” which is a not unreasonable way to see this behavior.

    LW has no idea how it’s actually affecting the direct reports. She’s making a lot of assumptions. And she’s also missing the fact that her decision, and her organization’s decisions, are not valuing good management are going to have trickle-down effects on the rest of the staff. You don’t solve that by punishing the middle manager, you solve that by managing yourself.

    1. Jennifer Strange*

      LW has no idea how it’s actually affecting the direct reports.

      The LW says at least one report is now following her lead in complaining about other staff.

      she’s also missing the fact that her decision, and her organization’s decisions, are not valuing good management are going to have trickle-down effects on the rest of the staff.

      The LW didn’t hire Tammy, she inherited all of this, and doesn’t have recourse to just fire Tammy.

      You don’t solve that by punishing the middle manager, you solve that by managing yourself.

      Which is exactly what the LW is doing. She’s been coaching Tammy, who is showing improvement, and has tried to mediate the situation between Beth and Tammy.

      Whether or not Beth has a right to be annoyed by the situation, her handling of that isn’t coming off great here, and is making it clear that even if Tammy wasn’t the best person for the position Beth certainly wasn’t either.

      1. drink*

        LW is under the impression that she has to make Beth be happy about working for a crappy boss and that Beth’s inability to be happy about it is ultimately Beth’s problem.

        LW is pushing the onus onto the people who don’t deserve it rather than pushing Tammy to be a better boss or finding a solution that actually solves the problem. So she can’t fire Tammy (and I didn’t suggest she should, btw, but thanks for putting words in my mouth), but why can’t she reorganize the reporting lines? Why can’t she move Tammy into a position that suits her (lack of) skills? There are MANY possible solutions even within the structure of government, and many of them don’t involve complaining that Beth seems unhappy with the shit sandwich she’s being fed.

        1. Dust Bunny*

          But she is pushing Tammy to be a better boss. The letter literally says that Tammy is being coached and is improving, and that her relationships with her reports is improving.

        2. Irish Teacher.*

          Is Tammy a “crappy boss” though? She might be or she might be not brilliant but pretty average for a relatively new boss and Beth is just…well, looking for problems and seizing on any minor imperfection and making a huge deal of it.

          Or (and I think this is most likely) the truth might lie between the two. Tammy might be struggling with some elements of her role and be below the standard the LW would ideally like but still within the realms of what is considered acceptable and Beth is overreacting because she wanted the job herself.

          We don’t know Tammy is a “less qualified, less effective person” than Beth. She might be but it is equally possible that Tammy is less than ideal for the role, say performing at a 7 out of 10 level when people in her role should ideally be an 8-10 and 5 or lower would be firing level, but that Beth would be at a 5 or a 6 were she in the role.

          I mean, it’s possible Beth would be better at the role than Tammy, but it’s equally possible she’d be worse. We don’t know.

      2. Mr. B*

        She’s been coaching Tammy

        If Beth is not privy to the coaching, then she cannot be expected to know whether the problems are being worked on, and is therefore in the right to bring up valid problems that are harming the team.

        1. drink*

          LW needs to understand that HER DECISIONS around Tammy have an effect on other people in this line of command. Beth is absolutely within her rights not to trust the management structure of this organization, and LW needs to stop berating her for not smiling enough in meetings. LW didn’t make this situation, no, but she does need to acknowledge the impact it’s having on the organization and the people in it.

          It is ENTIRELY REASONABLE for Beth and Beth’s direct reports to have seen how this all played out and decided you know what, they’re gonna half-ass the workday and save their all to give to things that matter.

          1. Socks*

            I think you’re reading of a lot of your own situation into this letter that isn’t necessarily evidenced in what the LW said.

          2. Myrin*

            “Berating her for not smiling enough in meetings” is an interesting way to summarise “She looks absolutely miserable in every meeting. If she’s not talking, which she virtually never does unprompted now, she stares into space with a look on her face like we’re torturing her. She was always a bit of a negative person, but that has just exploded — while she rarely talks at all, virtually everything she does say has a complaint attached to it or a deep sigh involved.”

        2. Dust Bunny*

          However, since she has a grudge and a preexisting beef with Tammy, her viewpoint is not exactly reliable.

          1. drink*

            Beth was passed over for a less-qualified, less-effective person to be put in the position. Her behavior is entirely reasonable, and it’s weird you find her to be the problem here.

            1. Jennifer Strange*

              No, her behavior is not entirely reasonable.

              First, we don’t know that Tammy is less-qualified and less-effective than Beth, just that she’s not as qualified or effective as the LW would like her to be. She could still be a much better candidate than Beth. Even if she is less-qualified, Beth is completely free to be annoyed by the situation and even to talk with the LW about her concerns with Tammy’s work (assuming it’s grounded in things that actually affect her). However, continuing to harp on it in this matter on a personal level is not reasonable.

            2. metadata minion*

              I don’t see any indication that Beth would be a stronger manager than Tammy. Am I missing something in the letter? Tammy isn’t a great manager, but I don’t see any mention of what Beth’s performance reviews were in previous years or anything like that. It could be that while Tammy wasn’t a great choice for the position, Beth wouldn’t be any better.

            3. StressedButOkay*

              I just saw the most perfect comment on FB for this – just because her feelings are valid over the situation doesn’t mean her behavior. It’s NOT fun being passed over and having someone who isn’t super strong be put into the role. But it’s still on her for acting professional, especially as a manager who has to set an example.

              1. Miguel*

                why does she has to set an example if that is not expected of others? why single her out for that? doesn’t the author or Tammy have to set one also? She was passed over, her complains disregarded up until it sarted to annoy the author, her team is complainig about tammy and the only reason the author can think of for that is that is because Beth is complaining, no thought even given to them having some points. If my boss is mediocre and that’s ok, why should i do better if no reward or consequence are in play?

                1. Jennifer Strange*

                  Her complaints were just nitpicky and personal, which is why they were disregarded. And Tammy has been given coaching and has improved, so work is being done. Not sure what else you expect.

            4. Citymouse*

              No, it’s not reasonable and Beth’s behavior demonstrates that passing her over was the correct call.

            5. Lady Danbury*

              I don’t think there’s anything in the letter that says that Tammy is less qualified or less effective, other than Beth’s own assessment. Tammy obviously needs coaching on her management, but Beth obviously does as well. OP even says that Beth tended to be negative prior to being passed over, so it’s not like this is a new aspect of her personality. It makes me wonder if the only mistake in this situation was hiring Tammy, and that not promoting Beth was actually the right decision, based on information known to the decisionmakers at that time.

            6. huh*

              How do you know Beth was more qualified or would more effective in this role? You don’t know these people. These are Beth’s ASSUMPTIONS (since we’re doing caps lock) about Tammy which are fueled by her resentment about being looked over.

            7. Dust Bunny*

              Her behavior demonstrates that, at least according to soft skills, she was not better qualified. And nothing in the letter says that she was better-qualified by hard skills, either.

              You’re filling in a lot of stuff where there aren’t actually any gaps.

            8. Glen*

              haha, no. Someone who’s running their boss down to their own direct reports is categorically not qualified to manage. Beth’s current behaviour is far more egregious than Tammy’s; Tammy is not as competent as LW would like, but working to improve. Beth is actively malignant.

            9. allathian*

              I don’t think so. There’s no evidence to suggest that Beth would’ve been a better hire than Tammy, and plenty of evidence to suggest that they originally made the right choice in not hiring Beth, although whether Tammy was the best possible hire is questionable. Presumably they interviewed other candidates too, not just Tammy and Beth…

        3. Jennifer Strange*

          It doesn’t seem like Beth is bringing up valid problems that are harming the team, though. Per the LW, Beth was just bringing up nitpicky complaints.

            1. Jennifer Strange*

              Actually, she’s writing into an advice column because she has two employees who feel stuck, she feels stuck, AND Beth is modeling poor behavior that has affected at least one of her direct reports.

      3. Also-ADHD*

        > The LW says at least one report is now following her lead in complaining about other staff.

        Yes, but what the other person was pointing out is that LW doesn’t know that the direct report isn’t bothered (truly) or responding to the environment, and Beth is just giving them the psychological safety to express their feelings. That would actually be Beth being a good manager, and I’m not saying it’s the case, but LW needs to look into it with an open mind to know. LW says she doesn’t know how it’s impacting Beth’s direct reports. She should figure it out.

        2. Jennifer Strange*

          LW says she doesn’t know how it’s impacting Beth’s direct reports

          Does she? I don’t see that in the letter. I see her state that one of Beth’s direct reports is “following her lead in complaining a lot about other staff.” That goes beyond just expressing feelings, and allowing a direct report to fester in negativity (especially if it nitpicky and personal in the same way Beth’s was) actually isn’t being a good manager.

          The fact that the LW is specifically calling out Tammy’s shortcomings shows me that she IS looking at this all with an open mind.

    2. JB (not in Houston)*

      Beth is being “punished” (although I disagree with that characterization) for her own poor behavior, not for anything else. Yes, it can be good for a middle manager to say “yeah this place is messed up, and we are all doing our best within it, but it’s frustrating as heck,” as long as the manager doesn’t dwell on it and can behave professionally. If Beth were a good middle manager, and her direct reports were feeling the effects of Tammy’s management growing pains, then the best thing for her to do is have a conversation like the one Alison suggets the OP have with Beth. Becoming a negativity vortex is not how to handle it.

    3. bamcheeks*

      This is true when you’re in a dysfunctional organisation, but also, if you’re in a dysfunctional organisation where this is a necessary self-protective mechanism, start looking for another job. Sticking around under these circumstances and contributing to the dysfunction makes you part of the problem, not the solution.

      1. ongovttime*

        I agree, but I recognize that it can be a really difficult message to appreciate when you have delayed benefits like a pension at the end of the tunnel. I’ve seen some generally pretty great people spend much of their careers enabling or advancing serious morale issues because it’s all pensionable time. Some people have spent so long with the dysfunction that it’s all they know. When you’ve been told that loyalty is the most important thing you can bring to the job, a lot of other considerations go out the window.

        That’s not a swipe at pensions or government jobs overall. I’ve been lucky to be part of a healthy team in a government agency. But here, people leave, come back, go on secondment, and we get people from other agencies too. We have our problems like everywhere else, but people getting a fresh look at our culture keeps a lot of the dysfunction from going overboard.

    4. NothingIsLittle*

      I think your take on your personal situation is causing you to seriously mischaracterize the situation OP has written in about. Beth isn’t saying, “this is an unreasonable expectation, I agree, but the higher powers have made this call and there’s nothing I can do about it,” or, “I agree that this is an undesirable policy change, but we just need to comply,” or even, “I’m aware that so-and-so is not very responsive to our needs, but we still have to go to them. I agree that it’s aggravating to follow up multiple times on a 2-minute task.” Beth is openly making nitpicky complaints about other staff in a way that has caused her direct reports to address complaints about their coworkers to the room rather than with those coworkers and their managers. That’s bad management.

      1. drink*

        I don’t think the letter supports your read at all. We don’t know how Beth is talking to her reports, only that her reports are responding in a certain way that displeases the letter writer.

        but the letter writer is ALSO displeased merely that Beth seems … unhappy. So I don’t find LW’s take terribly reliable, except so far as it allows us to see that LW is making assumptions about how a lot of people in this chain of command feel without actually doing the work of talking to them.

        LW is upset that Beth isn’t rainbows and unicorns, and I don’t think that’s really a fair thing to be upset by, especially when LW admits there’s a reason for it. Many of us wouldn’t be bright in chipper in meetings when confronted with this office structure.

        LW seems to be asking “how do I make Beth enjoy this job” when the reality is there may not be a way to do that, because it’s a toxic environment, one that LW has potentially contributed toward building.

        1. Dust Bunny*

          You’re really invested in letting Beth off the hook here. It actually is her job to also not contribute to any toxicity.

          1. Mr. B*

            No, just pointing out some things that people seem to be missing.

            Do not accuse commenters of dishonest nefarious motives.

              1. Mr. B*

                Correct. “You’re really invested in letting Beth off the hook here.” is an accusation of an assumed bad motive.

                1. Jennifer Strange*

                  I would say it’s a factual assertion based on the actual comments being made.

        2. Glen*

          it’s not “merely that Beth seems unhappy”. From the letter:

          “Beth came in hot at me from day one in this role that I needed to “fix” Tammy. She went around the chain of command to me constantly for every small nitpicky complaint she had about everything Tammy does. And ultimately, Beth just doesn’t like Tammy on a personal level, which she’s told me very plainly.”

          Tammy is working to improve. Beth is working to make the office dysfunctional. Remember this is over Tammy being not the best hire, not completely incapable. You’re making a lot of excuses for a frankly toxic staff member.

  17. Loose Socks*

    I am the HR Supervisor in a government facility, and if it’s anything like what I deal with… She likely can’t fire the employees and she isn’t downplaying what options she has. Our disciplinary process is absolutely ridiculous, and we’ve lost good employees because I can’t get approval to fire the bad employees. Most of the time I can’t even escalate the disciplinary issues beyond “Letter of Instruction”, which is essentially documenting we know it’s a problem, but we’re not going to do more. When I’ve tried (believe me, I’ve tried) I get it kicked back with instructions to drop it to a LoI. And the problems continue. It’s incredibly demoralizing.

  18. Essentially Working*

    I really wonder how it’s acceptable for anyone to foster conflict in the office. Both employees need to get things straight or leave.

    1. Jennifer Strange*

      Per the LW, Tammy is working to improve herself, so it’s really Beth who needs to decide what she wants here.

  19. Generic Name*

    Maybe this is a question for the Friday thread, but what can/should a manager do when the unhappy employee is an individual contributor? I have an IC that I can tell is unhappy, but it’s very difficult to tell what WOULD make her happy because she seems unable to articulate what she wants/needs (conversations go in circles, she gives contradictory answers-sometimes in the same conversation). I’ve tried changing what she works on, per her request, but she still seems unhappy. Not sure what my obligation to her is in terms of keeping trying different things to make her happier.

    1. Unpopular Opinion*

      I don’t think it necessarily is the job of a Manager to make all employees happy… to engage them in conversation and work on any issues the employees bring up…absolutely BUT some employees are just NOT HAPPY and that is fundamentally within the employees control NOT the manager

    2. CzechMate*

      I guess my questions are:

      a) how do you know she’s unhappy (aside from bringing it up and having her say, “Yeah, sure, I don’t like this)?
      b) does it affect her work?
      c) does it affect other people’s work?

      It could be that she just isn’t happy with work because, well, it’s work, and no amount of working around it is going to make it better. There’s a person in my office who I think is perpetually “unhappy” at our job, but he’s told me that he’s only happy if he a) doesn’t have to be at work, or b) when he is at work, he gets free food. The person in my office is kind of dead weight who we have to work around, so his attitude is definitely a problem. If your person otherwise does their job, gets everything done, and basically works well with others, then you could probably just leave it alone.

    3. metadata minion*

      It sounds like you’ve made a really good effort to ask her what’s wrong or what she wants to be different, and at that point, it’s really on her. Maybe the job’s not a great fit, or maybe she’s going through something in her personal life that’s affecting her? Either way, not you responsibility unless she can articulate something specific and reasonable that she needs from you. (Or you suddenly realize that her chair is cursed and replacing it would fix everything, but I’m guessing if it was an issue of “employee is missing a tool they might not realize exists”, you would have figured that out by now.)

    4. Jackie Daytona, Regular Human Bartender*

      It may just be out of your hands. Could be a personal life issue. Could be a work issue your IC doesn’t feel she can bring up.

      I was in a situation where my supervisor couldn’t fix what was making me the most unhappy nor did I feel safe disclosing to him what it was (the problem was his supervisor, who I had to work with directly on a variety of projects, and who liked to belittle me, but only in 1:1 conversations). My supervisor was a great guy, but I certainly didn’t trust the organization when it came to me vs. my grandboss.

      My supervisor worked to fix what he thought was something else I was unhappy with (the projects I worked directly on with the grandboss) because I asked to come off those projects, even though the projects themselves were not the problem. I did ask for that as my kind of “hail Mary” to try and stay in a job I otherwise enjoyed. But those changes started coming well after I was deep in my job search, and having seen escape was possible (I was getting interviews and even turned down a couple offers that weren’t quite right, but bolstered my sense that I was a competitive candidate), I decided getting away entirely from grandboss was the best thing for me. It was tough while I was still there though.

      So your IC may be unhappy and casting about for any fix when the reality is, the real problem is one she perceives that you cannot fix. Frustrating for both of you, I’m sure.

    5. Also-ADHD*

      I would start personally by trying to understand what I perceive as a contradiction and figure out what the person is actually saying. Sometimes people truly can’t articulate, but if it’s a circular conversation with contradictions what that suggests to me is they’re trying to articulate something but feel either unsafe to say it clearly or something in your two different perspectives/languages is making you not hear it.

      1. pamela voorhees*

        It might also help to (gently, but explicitly) say “doesn’t X contradict your wish for Y, because Z?” It might prompt her to explain how her reasoning differs, or realize that neither address her actual core issue.

        For example, if she’s saying “I want to work from home more” and “I want more people in the building,” it sounds like a conflict (“do you want to work from home, or do you want to work in the office?”) but could be her trying and failing to express “I am lonely being in the building by myself”.

    6. allathian*

      Some people are fundamentally unhappy and you really can’t fix them. Some people are unhappy because they need to work, and no job is going to make them happy, not even if they could simply continue to be paid for doing nothing, which is a totally unreasonable expectation in any functional organization.

      That said, I don’t like the idea of p0licing people’s emotions at work. As long as they’re doing work and not actively constantly complaining and spreading their unhappiness to others, let them be quietly unhappy in their corner.

  20. Jeremy’s iron*

    I’ll just say it—I don’t think that Tammy is as bad at her job as everyone (in the letter) is saying. I think a lot of that has been colored by Beth’s professional and personal dislike of her (and a lot of THAT is tangled up in her being passed over for the promotion—by an outside hire no less). Tammy has shown that she’s open to being coached and her dynamics with other reports and team members have all improved. Meanwhile, Beth’s attitude and performance have only gotten worse, to the point of possibly negatively impacting her own direct reports. Not great, Bob!! So frankly, the only real solution may be for Beth to seek out employment elsewhere. She’s poisoning the well at this team and it wouldn’t surprise me that after she leaves, there’s a marked improvement in EVERYONE’S performance and attitude.

    1. Xanna*

      Yeah, but the point is, if Tammy is unfireable, so is Beth. Regardless of which one of them is the bigger problem, we still end up in the same place which is that they can’t work together effectively and neither has any real imperative to go anywhere else.

      1. higheredadmin*

        Yes, but at the very least manager/LW can make it clear to Beth that a) her job is not to make Beth happy personally, just to create a work environment where everyone is treated in a professional manner and is able to do their jobs and b) this overly negative behaviour means that Beth has now tanked any chance of getting future promotions within the department.

  21. Garpu*

    To be fair, is Tammy a bad manager, or is she being sabotaged/smeared by Beth without the ability to do something about it? (If the culture is such that firings are difficult, if not impossible.)

    1. Irish Teacher.*

      Yep, I was wondering the same thing. It wouldn’t even have to be intentional sabotage or smearing. It could just be that Tammy is a newish manager, is perhaps still learning her way into the brief and dealing with reports who resent her in the role and Beth, because she is resentful of not getting the role, sees every minor mistake as evidence Tammy isn’t good enough and cause for complaint.

      I mean, it’s also possible Tammy is objectively bad, but it isn’t easy to come into a job where an internal candidate was disappointed and is determined to let everybody know that.

  22. higheredadmin*

    We are at the end of a two year process of getting a hugely underperforming staff person terminated. (I’m in higher education.) Constantly taking leave at short notice, not doing key parts of the job, constantly leaving students and colleagues in the lurch as things get dropped on the regular. It takes forever and a day and a huge amount of manager time, but don’t be afraid to do it.

    1. Anon for Today!*

      hah, your problem employee sounds like my colleague’s old problem employee (described above). They did find a new job at the university but they’ve been there less than a year, so it can’t be the same person, but it’s amazing how long it takes and how much time you have to invest.

  23. tabloidtainted*

    Is there a “Tammy situation,” aside from whatever behaviors LW is already coaching her on? You can’t say to the Beths of the world that if you mask your misdirected dislike and bitterness in endless petty complaints, you get to be taken as seriously as someone with reasonable complaints; that just tells Beth that this is a method she can use to indirectly make Tammy’s professional life difficult.

  24. Eukomos*

    “Stop making me aware of the fact that you’re unhappy” is never a great message unless you can alleviate the underlying unhappiness in some way. Has a bit of a “the beatings will continue until morale improves” vibe to it. Can you tell Beth more about the steps you’re taking to improve Tammy’s performance, perhaps? At least you’d be able to offer some kind of hope there.

    1. Also-ADHD*

      The other option to this (after investigating any actual impacts and addressing those) is that LW might just need to deal with the reality that Beth is unhappy. It sounds to me like Beth has stopped doing behaviors LW asked her to stop doing when they had the big convo to resolve the situation and has accepted the Tammy problem won’t be fixed. She’s still doing her work, at the mediocre level the org has stated is acceptable, and she’s fulfilling her obligations. She’s just not covering her unhappiness.

      LW should look into how Beth’s team feels about Beth as a manager. She says Beth’s team is complaining about things, but I don’t know if that’s “They feel psychologically safe to express dissatisfaction because that’s what Beth is modeling and allowing” which is a positive thing for Beth objectively, though maybe not great for LW OR if it is “Beth’s team is unhappy and needs Beth to be different” which LW should coach Beth on, if she finds that, but only to the degree she would coach Tammy re: what Beth needs from Tammy, not holding her to a higher standard as Alison says.

      But she should also consider “Why do I need Beth to look happy?” And maybe just be okay with Beth being quiet and looking miserable.

      1. commensally*

        Yes, agreed. It sounds like what’s actually happened here is they had a meeting where LW made it clear that Beth’s problems with Tammy’s management were not going to be addressed, and outlined the minimum requirements needed from both of them, and so Beth has decided to stick to those minimum requirements for her own well-being.

        Dropping to “minimum acceptable work” is just something you’re going to deal with if you don’t replace poor managers in a bad job market where people don’t feel safe to quit.

    2. Aggretsuko*

      Reminds me of when I was told I had to be happy at work. One person said I had to fake it and the other person said I had to be genuinely happy.

    3. Ginger Cat Lady*

      It sounds to me like it’s gotten to the point where Beth is just being dramatic in performing her unhappiness to make it known.
      She can be unhappy all she wants, but she can’t do the silent treatment in meetings. Beth needs to get over her disappointment and stop making a show of her unhappiness. She needs to do her job and deal with the situation in a more grown-up way than pouting like a toddler.

      1. commensally*

        I think there’s a difference between “silent treatment” and “not speaking up in meetings like you used to”. The first one is unacceptable, the second one is a pretty predictable response to being in a bad situation and then told by your boss’s boss that you need to stop speaking up so much when you see problems.

        1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

          Beth wasn’t told to stop raising genuine problems, just to stop nitpicking Tammy and very obviously trying to undermine her.

          “Beth had strong feelings about being passed over”
          Even if Tammy had been a brilliant hire, it is likely Beth would still have been miserale and nitpicked her.

    4. Penalizing Beth for her Looks??*

      I agree with Eukomos. I’m surprised no one is talking about how these comments are really about penalizing a woman for how she looks at work! Women must look happy at work??

      1. Jennifer Strange*

        It’s not about looking happy at work, it’s about not continuously fostering negativity in your job to the point that one of your direct reports is now acting out in a similar way.

      2. Dust Bunny*

        Literally nobody is saying that. They are saying that her pointedly mopey, undermining behavior is a problem. And it is. She can either deal with it like an adult and a professional or find a new job. As it is, all she’s doing is demonstrating that not giving her the job was the right, or at least not a bad, decision.

        1. pamela voorhees*

          This really is the core tension though, because it can simultaneously be true that policing women’s facial expressions, particularly to “be happier”, is a horrible, sexist practice that does not have a place in management, and also that Beth’s expression that looks like she’s being tortured is out of line in a professional environment. You have to be really careful with threading the needle, because the situation has the potential to rapidly turn into “higher management will punish me for raising complaints/not being cheerful.” That’s not what’s happening here, of course, but a heavy handed “deal with it” will sound like that to many people.

  25. Cyrano*

    I don’t really know why everyone has latched onto the discussion about whether people can be fired in this situation. It doesn’t seem like anyone is doing anything fireable. It just requires management to grasp the mettle and have some tough conversations.

    It seems like this is happening with Tammy and her coaching – though I’m curious about these “specific behaviours that bother her staff”.

    But Beth’s situation required management from day one. No one’s entitled to a job, but it’s also not unreasonable to suffer from a loss of morale and not feel valued if you’re passed over for a promotion in favour of an outside hire who goes on to disappoint. That’s not to excuse obstruction, but it’s something that should have been managed more actively at the time and requires active management now.

    Look at it from the outside, without fixating on the idea that Beth hates Tammy: the organisation preferred a low quality outside hire whose poor management has “bothered” her workers and morale has collapsed. Maybe that didn’t come from nowhere? Maybe lots of decisions have lead to this resentment?

    1. fitz*

      +1 to this perspective. I get the sense that there are a lot of details left out (which is normally fine), but when a situation is left to fester with minimal direct management, you end up embroiled in a much larger mess.

    2. Tony Rodriguez*

      Just a side note: those tough conversations you reference must be documented in the presence of a neutral third party (usually an HR rep) and in my experience all too often lead to termination if behaviors addressed are not quickly adjusted.

      2. Cyrano*

        Not necessarily. Tough in the sense of sensitive, perhaps hard to face but necessary. I don’t think any kind of “shape up or ship out” conversation was necessary – except perhaps not the situation has gone unaddressed for so long.

        It’s a tough conversation to talk with an aspiring internal applicant about why they’ve been passed over in favour of an external hire, especially if that external hire hasn’t performed to the level people expected. But it’s not a disciplinary one.

  26. Ginger Cat Lady*

    Has anyone told Beth that her behavior just confirms that not promoting her was the right call?

    1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Beth should be clearly told that even if Tammy left tomorrow, her (Beth’s) prolonged sulking and undermining of Tammy means she would not be considered as a replacement.
      Also that if she wants to be progress at all in her career, then for the next couple of years at least she needs to stop sulking and do a lot more than the bare minimum

  27. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

    It is even more important to manage performance during a bad job market because employees are much less likely to leave when they are miserable at a job. They just stay and try to make everyone else unhappy too.
    Also at jobs with good pensions (mostly feds/state in the US?) when employees are grimly hanging on for say their last 10 years.
    Document, work closely with HR, move to PIPs and firing if necessary.

    imo a mediocre sulky miseryguts deliberately doing the bare minimum has a much worse effect on workplace morale and efficiency than someone who is just mediocre but cooperating with coaching.
    Personally, I’ve much less tolerance of someone wilfully doing poorly rather than someone mediocre but trying to improve.

  28. Llama Grooming Gov’t Worker*

    I’m a little late to the game, but I’m going to add something here:

    As Beth’s boss, Tammy may not be doing the same job as Beth. If Beth is a Manager of Llama Grooming she might train new groomers, order new supplies from established vendors, oversee the drain cleaning contract, etc. as well as groom a few of the more difficult llamas.

    But as Director of Llama Grooming, Tammy is responsible for scheduling and personnel management, evaluation and negotiation of contracts with vendors and enterprise rates for local llama herds, meet with other departments ant the same level and let them know that llama grooming is available (and, please, please have your llama groomed by us. We have certifications in the field) etc. Oh, and groom the the surliest of the biting llamas when they’re too much for the groomers or managers.

    Looking around at my government job, what my boss does *takes a different skillset* than what I do, and what I do overlaps with my reports, but at least a third of my job is things they’re not doing (and using the llama example, they get the tractable llamas, I get the the surly ones, and my boss takes the ones that bite). We have an employee in my group who will go on in group meeting – probably at least an hour a month – about how our contractors are grooming llamas wrong and how we should be doing it in house “the way we used to.”

    Ok. Fine.

    But there was a management decision at least four levels above her that it would be contracted out. And the level above her – in addition to inspecting the “groomed llamas” – manages the llama grooming contract. Co-worker is upset she hasn’t been promoted any of the last four times she applied for the promotion job. But she doesn’t have the temperament and has declared she wouldn’t do it the way it needs to be done and wouldn’t have her reports do it.

    1. Cyrano*

      I’d call this a management issue. You’ve got an employee who is keen to progress but doesn’t have a realistic idea about what progression looks like or requires. Potentially that energy could be a really useful thing if it’s properly directed. Or they won’t take that direction and will continue to tilt at their particular windmills. But it has to start with a conversation about what their path might look like, what the next step could be for them and how they can demonstrate they are ready for that step/build towards readiness.

  29. ElliottRook*

    “You should assume XYZ will still be that way a year from now, or even a few years from now. I want to be up-front with you about that because I want you to be able to make good decisions for yourself, and my strong advice is to be honest with yourself about whether you can find a way to be reasonably happy within that reality, or whether this is just not a good match for you long-term.”

    Ah, the Sheelzebub principle from Captain Awkward. Nice to see.

  30. Da Analyst*

    Not to be glib but what government agency isn’t completely full of this sort of thing right now? Moral is in the toilet. I personally know people who routinely put in 12-16 hour days who now literally set a timer at work and leave the second it goes off.

    Personally I’d focus on what is critical to me and the team and address only that. Pouting would not be high in my list.

  31. Penalizing Beth for her Looks??*

    Something is really standing out to me that the manager is going to sit Beth down for “looking” miserable. This woman can’t get a break. She doesn’t “look” happy and isn’t speaking unless spoken to instead of bad-mouthing Tammy. Now women are in trouble for not looking happy at work??

  32. Thomas*

    I hope Beth leaves and becomes an excellent employee for another employer. Although it’s not good that Beth is letting her own work be so badly affected, who *wouldn’t* be aggrieved at being denied a role that instead went to an outside hire who’s turned out to be bad but not bad enough to sack?

  33. Seal*

    Another possibility I haven’t seen addressed in the comments (apologies if I missed it). If Beth is also dealing with an unexpected health or family crisis, her shutting down in meetings and otherwise looking miserable may have nothing to do with her work situation. Plenty of people, myself included, choose not to share personal crises with colleagues or their boss, especially in a fraught working environment. Speaking from experience, it’s damned near impossible to maintain a professional demeanor when your entire life is crashing around you.

    1. Rowan*

      If that were the case, then when she does speak she probably wouldn’t be dramatically sighing and attaching work-related complaints. She’d be more likely to be distracted, rather than putting extra attention onto finding work things to complain about.

      1. ongovttime*

        Ideally that wouldn’t happen, but I’ve been told to accept people acting dismissive and disrespectful toward me because they’re going through personal issues. If I were to do the same I’d be DOA, but not everyone is expected to be professional in environments like what the LW is describing.

  34. StarryMotley*

    I mean, realistically… why would Beth work harder for you, or show up with a positive attitude? When she was working hard, she got passed over for promotion, and it’s not as though some superstar got hired instead — Tammy sucks at her job. Beth has tried to push for improvement, and it’s been called nitpicking and brushed off. Of course she’s shut down and started doing the minimum. She doesn’t like her boss, and she’s been shown clearly by two grandbosses that no amount of effort is going to improve her situation. She’s also been shown that poor performance is accepted in this organization. She has no incentive to perform to a higher standard. She’s quiet quitting and acting her wage.

    1. Jennifer Strange*

      First, there is nothing to indicate that she was passed over for a promotion while working hard. She could have been putting in the bare minimum when passed over. Second, the LW knows better than any of us if the content of Beth’s complaints are nitpicky or valid.

    2. Dust Bunny*

      Again: There is also no real indication that Tammy is a poor performer, just that she’s not ideal but open to being coached and is actively improving. They didn’t accept poor performance: They took a chance on meh performance that is now headed it the right direction. That’s not a bad outcome. And nothing in the original letter mentions that Beth was a great performer, only that she has slipped down to pretty mediocre; she might have been just solidly average before.

  35. Catsu*

    As someone who has only ever worked in the private sector in at-will states, the fact that neither Beth nor Tammy are “bad enough to get fired” is mind-blowing to me. As I work in a sector where you can get fired if your boss doesn’t like the color of your shirt, both Beth and Tammy would’ve been fired overnight for acting the way they are.

  36. zolk*

    I work in public service and my former team has an incompetent/walking HR violation of a manager who is in the fireable class (non-unionized) but hasn’t been fired because her boss is her friend/neighbour (what a mistake!) and the team is performing in _spite_ of her. The skip level boss has said before that she doesn’t want to go through the work of firing and hiring people because it’s “too much work”. (She said this to unionized staff directly impacted by the people who need to be fired.)

    If someone isn’t willing to do the paperwork to fire a problem manager or employee, they should also be fired. Not that this _seems_ to be the case in this letter, but it is a recurring problem based on my experiences and the comment section here.

  37. ScarletRose*

    I was a bit taken aback that there’s a suggestion to see if Tammy can be fired – from the OP’s letter I did not get the impression that Tammy’s a bad manager, but just not a strong one yet. And she has improved based on OP’s coaching! So that’s an encouraging sign, no? However, Beth is completely out of line and it is her were investigating whether something more akin to PIPs or firing can be done.

Comments are closed.