31–40 of 201 posts
Employment is at-will. It's better to just fire without the PIP drama. As it is, a PIP does not provide legal cover if the employee writes back, effectively rejecting it.
Going through the motions of a PIP is a pain if you're management. If someone gets PIP'ed then a decent manager already exhausted all other avenues to get a team member to start contributing at the expected level and the PIP is just to provide cover. You don't PIP a lower performing staff unless they're completely useless or toxic to the environment, you just find tasks that suit them better. At least in my experienc…
> You don't PIP a lower performing staff unless they're completely useless or toxic Maybe this is part of the problem -- that it's called one thing (a plan to improve performance) but is used as another (legalese once you've already given up hope). But I've never quite understood why. I imagine if I was a manager people would know if they are doing 20% as much as the best team member and would either be off the team…
because "completely useless or toxic"(from prev comment) is manager's subjective assessment, and company wants to have stronger metric for firing people.
I don’t understand why you would PIP a person and keep them waffling around for months on end collecting paychecks when you can just severance them out and pay less in time and money?
Employment is at-will. It's better to just fire without the PIP drama. As it is, a PIP does not provide legal cover if the employee writes back, effectively rejecting it.
IANAL, but I don’t think this is correct
Going through the motions of a PIP is a pain if you're management. If someone gets PIP'ed then a decent manager already exhausted all other avenues to get a team member to start contributing at the expected level and the PIP is just to provide cover. You don't PIP a lower performing staff unless they're completely useless or toxic to the environment, you just find tasks that suit them better. At least in my experienc…
> You don't PIP a lower performing staff unless they're completely useless or toxic Maybe this is part of the problem -- that it's called one thing (a plan to improve performance) but is used as another (legalese once you've already given up hope). But I've never quite understood why. I imagine if I was a manager people would know if they are doing 20% as much as the best team member and would either be off the team…
There is nothing to hate here. I have given numerous PIP's as a manager and only actually fired once. The purpose of a PIP is to improve, not to fire a person.
How on earth can you be a good manager and not realize that saying "your performance is shit, we're going to fire you unless you take this course and we deem you've passed" is totally and utterly soul destroying to a person?
Going through the motions of a PIP is a pain if you're management. If someone gets PIP'ed then a decent manager already exhausted all other avenues to get a team member to start contributing at the expected level and the PIP is just to provide cover. You don't PIP a lower performing staff unless they're completely useless or toxic to the environment, you just find tasks that suit them better. At least in my experienc…
This assumes management is competent and well intentioned.
PIPs can be used for more nefarious reasons, like firing a good employee you don't get along with if you need to convince upper management. Set unrealistic goals then fire them for not meeting them.
> “A lot of the time, they’re done,” Gadea said of underperformers. “They’re burned out, they need a break. And now you’re asking them to work harder.” I've seen that once, most recently. Before that, it was somebody who was trying to get let go on performance grounds, thinking that it would lead to severance (didn't work out). Before that, it was somebody who got put on PIP, but I'm not sure why, and they were perso…
I got put on a PIP at Amazon, and even at the time I thought it was a reasonable criticism. I then worked hard, graduated out of the PIP, and stayed there a few more years. (I also opted-in to a second PIP (with my manager's knowledge and assistance) when I was leaving so I could get severance, but I don't really count that) One of my current mentees got put on a PIP a couple years ago, and she likewise has significa…
That said, I agree with the general sentiment that much more often than not the employer is not acting in good faith. Over the decades I've seen way too many colleagues get put on a PIP, I tell them to work hard because it can get better, and then they get let go anyways.
Not sure what I'd do today if it happened to me. Probably a bit of both. Take it for the feedback that it is & try to improve my flaws. And also start looking around for a new employer, knowing the reality of the situation.
That's mostly bullshit. The real purpose of a PIP is just to bolster documentation on the employer side to fend off any wrongful termination lawsuits. It probably has a side effect of looking more consistent, but that isn't the purpose.
One thing that does favor the employee is that legal and HR sometimes get carried away with how much documentation is needed. So it ends up taking longer than the employer really wants. But if the employee understands the true purpose of the PIP it gives them plenty of time to job search.