3 ms·

Leaving aside the clear miscommunication that led to the "needs improvement" state first, it seems to me the management did just fine after that: 1. They quick

by ptero 9y ago

Leaving aside the clear miscommunication that led to the "needs improvement" state first, it seems to me the management did just fine after that: 1. They quickly and clearly told the employee of the problem. 2. They proposed a course of action 3. Their proposal worked (at the end they were happy with his work). It was not pleasant for sure (for both sides, I bet), but would it be worse to say nothing and terminate him for non performance in a couple of extra months. My 2c.

ggambetta 9y ago
My thoughts exactly - this is a clear case of the process working as intended.
- ptero 9y ago
  And in general I agree with other posters that the success (3) is rare. In general if one gets on the "needs improvement" plan it is time to get out on your own. In theory it doesn't have to be this way, but in practice it does.
- canes123456 9y ago
  The intended process ends with the employee being fired. The only reason to do a PIP is to cover the companies ass when they get fired or encourage them to quit. This person frankly messed up by staying at the company. The correct way to do this if they actually want to let the employee improve: - Ask the employee if there is anything going on with their life - Ask them how they feel they are doing and validate them - Tell them about some of your concerns - Let them explain their side of your concerns - Propose a way to improve the situation where both parties are happy - Reiterate that they are happy with the work otherwise If the employee improves, encourage them and make them feel safe in the room. Repeat the steps if the situation does not improve. If this doesn't work start the official PIP, i.e. start slowly firing them.
- soneca 9y ago
  Yes, it worked as intended. And still the employee felt humiliated, "the damage was done" and the mutual trust was eroded. So this processo doesn't work at all, even in the best scenario. That's why the author is criticizing it I guess.
mcguire 9y ago
"1. They quickly and clearly told the employee of the problem." As a general rule, if you wish to keep the employee, you should start with an informal warning that their behavior is unsatisfactory rather than a formal procedure.
BeetleB 9y ago
>It was not pleasant for sure (for both sides, I bet), but would it be worse to say nothing and terminate him for non performance in a couple of extra months. Those aren't the only choices, though. I think the point of contention (which isn't clear in the article), is whether they had any conversations about it before initiating a formal process. If not, I completely agree with the author even if the author was irresponsible with his work ethic. Think of the asymmetry. If I'm dissatisfied with my manager, can I start a formal process against him? Generally not. My only option is to have a conversation (be it with him or with his superiors). Conversations should happen clearly before a PIP.

by ptero 9y ago

ggambetta 9y ago

My thoughts exactly - this is a clear case of the process working as intended.

ptero 9y ago
And in general I agree with other posters that the success (3) is rare. In general if one gets on the "needs improvement" plan it is time to get out on your own. In theory it doesn't have to be this way, but in practice it does.
canes123456 9y ago
The intended process ends with the employee being fired. The only reason to do a PIP is to cover the companies ass when they get fired or encourage them to quit. This person frankly messed up by staying at the company. The correct way to do this if they actually want to let the employee improve: - Ask the employee if there is anything going on with their life - Ask them how they feel they are doing and validate them - Tell them about some of your concerns - Let them explain their side of your concerns - Propose a way to improve the situation where both parties are happy - Reiterate that they are happy with the work otherwise If the employee improves, encourage them and make them feel safe in the room. Repeat the steps if the situation does not improve. If this doesn't work start the official PIP, i.e. start slowly firing them.
soneca 9y ago
Yes, it worked as intended. And still the employee felt humiliated, "the damage was done" and the mutual trust was eroded. So this processo doesn't work at all, even in the best scenario. That's why the author is criticizing it I guess.

mcguire 9y ago

"1. They quickly and clearly told the employee of the problem." As a general rule, if you wish to keep the employee, you should start with an informal warning that their behavior is unsatisfactory rather than a formal procedure.

BeetleB 9y ago

>It was not pleasant for sure (for both sides, I bet), but would it be worse to say nothing and terminate him for non performance in a couple of extra months. Those aren't the only choices, though. I think the point of contention (which isn't clear in the article), is whether they had any conversations about it before initiating a formal process. If not, I completely agree with the author even if the author was irresponsible with his work ethic. Think of the asymmetry. If I'm dissatisfied with my manager, can I start a formal process against him? Generally not. My only option is to have a conversation (be it with him or with his superiors). Conversations should happen clearly before a PIP.