Comment by ghettoCoder
8 months ago
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 experience managing staff.
> 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.
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.
Amazing how we get managers in this thread on both sides of “we’d never PIP to fire” and “yup we always PIP to fire” and both sides confidently say the other side doesn’t exist e.g. “you don't do that/i’ve never heard of that.”
> 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 or have shaped up within 6 months. That period where you genuinely are making sure that somebody understands you think they aren't doing well and clarify expectations seems valuable and ideally would happen long before it's too late.
The problem is what pip percentages say about management. Either HR hires and management approves 20 % duds - or your company is a rockstar shredder machine. Neither is a pleasant truth.
I think .20 is an underestimate. Under performers are likely in the .25 to .35 percent range. It is hard to find the right people and so there is an acceptance of good enough. The PIPs start with the most egregious or if cash flow is tight. An owner I worked for called it trimming the dead wood. From the business side it is best to get rid of some people. Its best for the remaining people too.
3 replies →
> but is used as another (legalese once you've already given up hope).
because "completely useless or toxic"(from prev comment) is manager's subjective assessment, and company wants to have stronger metric for firing people.
Most of life is subjective. Objectivity is very difficult. You are dealing with people who are mostly wacky. I suppose a weighted decision calculation could be used. How do you measure grumpy gus, chatty cathy, or mean marvin? How do handle the unsober?
1 reply →