81–89 of 89 posts
I have been on both sides 1) got a talking too about performance - it wasn't called a pip (my mom was dying and I was taking too much time out for medical appointments for her. Note the discussion was shortly after she had passed) 2) As a fairly new manager (at the time) I had to put my first hire as a manager onto a pip. It was painfully obvious to everyone they were not capable and struggled with the most basic thi…
Like what?
I have been on both sides 1) got a talking too about performance - it wasn't called a pip (my mom was dying and I was taking too much time out for medical appointments for her. Note the discussion was shortly after she had passed) 2) As a fairly new manager (at the time) I had to put my first hire as a manager onto a pip. It was painfully obvious to everyone they were not capable and struggled with the most basic thi…
> struggled with the most basic things. Like what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> struggled with the most basic things. Like what?
Shell stuff, basic coding, tooling. I don't have a problem with people needing to learn. I have a problem with someone saying they have 10 years of experience and having to do their job for them while paired up (literally telling them what to type and them not understanding what or why).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Oh, ‘externalities’? Please do tell. Tell of a manager that doesn't understand engineering, collaboration, and tradeoffs.
Those are included directly in the PIP if deficient. And are always key parts of the job. While there are plenty of incompetent (or just plain dickish) managers, no one who ever reported to me got a PIP for anything but being consistently ineffective or so abrasive they were causing more trouble than they were worth. Ineffective could mean anything from couldn’t code effectively (compared to peers) to couldn’t design…
This leads to a weird situation - one wherein as soon as a manager, reporting to you,faces pressure, they use the PIP to find an escape hatch. They start creating narratives about how some failure is because of an engineer individual - and not because of poor structures, poor communication by the manager, or generally management losing track of what makes a project succeed. An example of this is merely managers who PIP people for something sliding by 2 days but reality is that those 2 days don't matter to the business - it is a mediocre system that is penalizing an individual for those 2 days - just because.
The fact that you've had to PIP over 20 people - say at a rate of 1 person per year - it is a massive signal that your structures are dysfunctional. Either you are hiring absolute dumbasses or there is something wrong about your system that causes Pippable behaviors.
Look inwards. You'll go further in life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are included directly in the PIP if deficient. And are always key parts of the job. While there are plenty of incompetent (or just plain dickish) managers, no one who ever reported to me got a PIP for anything but being consistently ineffective or so abrasive they were causing more trouble than they were worth. Ineffective could mean anything from couldn’t code effectively (compared to peers) to couldn’t design…
At this point, it is clear that your approaching is bad-faith. Let me tell you why - it is because you are relying on your managers to tell you how someone is performing. This leads to a weird situation - one wherein as soon as a manager, reporting to you,faces pressure, they use the PIP to find an escape hatch. They start creating narratives about how some failure is because of an engineer individual - and not becau…
For example - where did you get that I PIP'd over 20 people? Because I not only never said that, it never happened.
Of the dozen I did PIP, over half were handed to me in re-orgs, and had been persistent performance issues that the prior manager never addressed. Such is corporate life.
And all of those dozen I handled directly. There were a few in time that subordinates handled as they came up later, but I forgot to count those in the total. All I would do in those cases is ensure they were doing the right things - I wouldn't ever make the call, as it wasn't mine to make. They don't meaningfully impact the overall numbers though.
And there were a lot of non-PIP performance discussions too of course. For instance, I had a manager I took over that was burnt out and performing badly due to a really legally dangerous performance issue from someone MY boss had insisted be given a chance. I didn't PIP the manager, we talked about it and I helped him find a new team where he could get some new scenery, and my boss took over the performance problem.
Regardless, only 4 of the 12 ended up being fired. Which is what, 2% of the total number of folks? Even doubling that, over 10 years that is amazing. The rest improved performance wise. Several of them even thanked me. Bizarrely, the really difficult case I talked about was one of them.
Near as I can tell, no one had ever held him accountable for his actual performance, because he had previously kept succeeding at getting people to blow up at him.
Show me a place where that is a bad stat, and I'll show you a place that is lying through their teeth or delusional.
And hey, I got PIP'd once too. Personal issues that bled over into professional life. It sucks!
My manager was right on with what the issues were though, even if he didn't do most of the actual best practices. I ended up making some major life changes personal wise to deal with my issues as well as transferring to a different team as my managers style was not a good fit for me either, and had another 3+ years of productive time in my career there (and got promoted). We still chat from time to time.
Ciao!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keeping low performers on a team (or ones that yield "failed projects" consistently) isn't good for the rest of the team and/or your own personal stress and productivity (as a manager).
It depends. Sometimes people just need a kick in the ass. Sometimes they have a blind spot that needs to be pointed out. People should be given a chance to improve. In terms of action required, there’s often very little difference between helping an under-achiever hit the mark, and helping an adequate performer grow. It’s just a question of expectations. I argue that a failure to ever do the former makes one a bad ma…
I interpreted this from OP: >Both failed… I would have much preferred keeping them to finding and training someone new
as giving infinite leeway, like "i'd rather not go through the hiring process and just 'deal with it'".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shell stuff, basic coding, tooling. I don't have a problem with people needing to learn. I have a problem with someone saying they have 10 years of experience and having to do their job for them while paired up (literally telling them what to type and them not understanding what or why).
How did this person get hired in the first place?
PIPs can be the result of a bad manager. I think "low performers" should be given a 2nd chance on a different team. If their new manager says the same thing, then fire them. I've seen people who didn't gel with their assigned team or project for whatever reason, only to be transferred elsewhere in the company and do well.