3 ms·

In my limited experience PIPs are an HR process to document why they are firing you, not any real stab at recovery / rehabilitation.

by animex 8y ago

smueller1234 8y ago
That could well be the case at your employer. However, the reason why I wrote the lengthy post you're replying to is that this is by no means universal. This means that if every employee starts with the assumption that it's just a firing tool, the chance to succeed drops dramatically. That's because instead of heeding the warning and pulling oneself together, one might disengage, become cynical, and give up. So please, before anyone checks out in that situation, pay close attention to what's been happening in the department, and be careful about simply throwing away the career one might have had in that company just because of someone else's claims. Or put differently: that situation is one best served WITHOUT cynicism, but indeed rational caution.
- BeetleB 8y ago
  >So please, before anyone checks out in that situation, pay close attention to what's been happening in the department The issue is that much of this is an opaque process (for both good and bad reasons). People are forced to make an assumption one way or the other, because they have no access to the data. At that point, the prisoner's dilemma dominates. I don't doubt companies like yours exist, but are they the norm? I've not met one person in real life who has been on a PIP and it was not a case of the manager trying to find an excuse to get rid of him. Netflix's HR got rid of them because they were being used by managers to get rid of employees.
  - smueller1234 8y ago
    Concur on the opacity. I also didn't mean to imply that companies that abuse the process don't exist. I'd guess it's more common than not, if nothing else because most managers aren't... great at their jobs. That being said, likening this to a prisoner's dilemma is a tiny bit misleading: the costs and benefits between the options are less symmetric then in the idealized proposition. There is really no benefit to going cynical about the process besides some cheap satisfaction in a bar after work and avoiding introspection. That doesn't mean it's not pragmatic to make a plan B, however!
    - BeetleB 8y ago
      >There is really no benefit to going cynical about the process besides some cheap satisfaction in a bar after work and avoiding introspection. That doesn't mean it's not pragmatic to make a plan B, however! First, the two are not exclusive. One can introspect and go straight for plan B without bothering with the PIP. Why go along with the PIP even if you accept you are at fault, if you do not know if the company will keep you? You can always improve at a new job. To me, it does seem like a prisoner's dilemma. You have to weigh the probabilities of each outcome and decide. In the few cases I've seen, the real issue was a disagreement between the manager and the employee on whether their was underperformance at all. As a clear example I've seen in my company: The employee is more productive than a coworker, yet he was put on a PIP and the other wasn't. He also did not work long hours, choosing instead to be efficient. He was in the habit of disagreeing with his manager and the customer on many issues. However, the PIP did not mention any of the last part - it just said he was slow to meet his goals and was often not at his cube. Yet when he went to the manager, HR, etc and asked what "slow" means and how it is being measured (because he likely was ahead of some of his coworkers on those metrics), etc, he really did not get anything concrete - just phrases like "well if your peers and manager think you are being slow, that is enough". This kind of example is not unusual where I'm at. And this is an example of no transparency. The employee literally was excused of something but had no way to defend himself: No evidence presented by the management that he could question. Just that his manager and customer were not happy with his speed, and some of his coworkers saying he would leave work before the others. When you see that happen at your company, you lose faith in HR. If I get a PIP that I disagree with, I'm not going to bother. Plan B will become Plan A. Heck, even if I agree with the PIP, I don't see a point in following it through, because given the company's policy, I have no way of knowing if they are sincerely trying to help me or trying to get rid of me. I can always introspect and go for plan B.

In my limited experience PIPs are an HR process to document why they are firing you, not any real stab at recovery / rehabilitation.

by animex 8y ago

In my limited experience PIPs are an HR process to document why they are firing you, not any real stab at recovery / rehabilitation.

smueller1234 8y ago

That could well be the case at your employer. However, the reason why I wrote the lengthy post you're replying to is that this is by no means universal. This means that if every employee starts with the assumption that it's just a firing tool, the chance to succeed drops dramatically. That's because instead of heeding the warning and pulling oneself together, one might disengage, become cynical, and give up. So please, before anyone checks out in that situation, pay close attention to what's been happening in the department, and be careful about simply throwing away the career one might have had in that company just because of someone else's claims. Or put differently: that situation is one best served WITHOUT cynicism, but indeed rational caution.

BeetleB 8y ago
>So please, before anyone checks out in that situation, pay close attention to what's been happening in the department The issue is that much of this is an opaque process (for both good and bad reasons). People are forced to make an assumption one way or the other, because they have no access to the data. At that point, the prisoner's dilemma dominates. I don't doubt companies like yours exist, but are they the norm? I've not met one person in real life who has been on a PIP and it was not a case of the manager trying to find an excuse to get rid of him. Netflix's HR got rid of them because they were being used by managers to get rid of employees.
- smueller1234 8y ago
  Concur on the opacity. I also didn't mean to imply that companies that abuse the process don't exist. I'd guess it's more common than not, if nothing else because most managers aren't... great at their jobs. That being said, likening this to a prisoner's dilemma is a tiny bit misleading: the costs and benefits between the options are less symmetric then in the idealized proposition. There is really no benefit to going cynical about the process besides some cheap satisfaction in a bar after work and avoiding introspection. That doesn't mean it's not pragmatic to make a plan B, however!
  - BeetleB 8y ago
    >There is really no benefit to going cynical about the process besides some cheap satisfaction in a bar after work and avoiding introspection. That doesn't mean it's not pragmatic to make a plan B, however! First, the two are not exclusive. One can introspect and go straight for plan B without bothering with the PIP. Why go along with the PIP even if you accept you are at fault, if you do not know if the company will keep you? You can always improve at a new job. To me, it does seem like a prisoner's dilemma. You have to weigh the probabilities of each outcome and decide. In the few cases I've seen, the real issue was a disagreement between the manager and the employee on whether their was underperformance at all. As a clear example I've seen in my company: The employee is more productive than a coworker, yet he was put on a PIP and the other wasn't. He also did not work long hours, choosing instead to be efficient. He was in the habit of disagreeing with his manager and the customer on many issues. However, the PIP did not mention any of the last part - it just said he was slow to meet his goals and was often not at his cube. Yet when he went to the manager, HR, etc and asked what "slow" means and how it is being measured (because he likely was ahead of some of his coworkers on those metrics), etc, he really did not get anything concrete - just phrases like "well if your peers and manager think you are being slow, that is enough". This kind of example is not unusual where I'm at. And this is an example of no transparency. The employee literally was excused of something but had no way to defend himself: No evidence presented by the management that he could question. Just that his manager and customer were not happy with his speed, and some of his coworkers saying he would leave work before the others. When you see that happen at your company, you lose faith in HR. If I get a PIP that I disagree with, I'm not going to bother. Plan B will become Plan A. Heck, even if I agree with the PIP, I don't see a point in following it through, because given the company's policy, I have no way of knowing if they are sincerely trying to help me or trying to get rid of me. I can always introspect and go for plan B.