4 ms·

It’s not a “conceal” as it is a lack of discussion. I get that being put on performance management plan can be demoralizing. The article makes it appear unjust.

It’s not a “conceal” as it is a lack of discussion. I get that being put on performance management plan can be demoralizing. The article makes it appear unjust. It only reveals the true nature of the concealing AFTER it has narrated the whole story with opinions. This is ridiculous. Amazon is doing it exactly right. However there needs to be transparency at the minimum expected performance. For all employees. And when employees know they don’t meet that expectation, they do whatever they need to do including use corporate resources to get there. But this article is a hit piece

tannedNerd 5y ago
What’s the true nature of the concealing? The fact that some managers flout the guidance that Amazon provides to not tell people they are on a PIP? I’ve never heard of another company doing that, much less would want to work for one where that is the official guidance to managers! If you might label it a hit price, I don’t think it’s that controversial to label you as Amazon apologist.
- DougBTX 5y ago
  In the small section where they quote Amazon’s perspective, it says: > tell the employee that their performance is not meeting expectations Then the rest of the article is all quotes about employees who are not sure if they are meeting expectations or not. Are managers just not following this guidance, or is there some other rule that says the opposite of this quote?
  - tannedNerd 5y ago
    Not meet expectations is a widely different world than PIP especially if the signals you are getting otherwise make you feel like you are performing well. Managers are clearly told by amazon to communicate as little as possible about underperforming if employees can be on secret PIP for 12 months…
tablespoon 5y ago
> It’s not a “conceal” as it is a lack of discussion. Lack of discussion is concealment. Knowing you're on a formal PIP is to know whatever performance issues your manager might be telling you about are actually serious and that your job is on the line. It's my understanding that formal tracking of performance issues is frequently a CYA step prior to termination.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > "Amazon instructs managers not to tell office employees that they are on a formal performance-management plan that puts their job in jeopardy unless the employee explicitly asks, according to guidance from an Amazon intranet page for managers." The fact is the PIP hasn't put their job in jeopardy, it was their not meeting expectations that put their job in jeopardy. The reality is once you're there, it's (a) probably obvious due to your manager's consistent displeasure and (b) almost impossible to get out of either way because even if the manager is wrong the employer will side with the manager. The PIP itself is, as you say, just procedural backside-covering to paper up a decision that was already made. > Lack of discussion is concealment. With that in mind, is it really better to torture an employee with a set of steps you know they won't execute to your satisfaction anyways and dole out false hope? It seems far more humane to let them know it isn't working out and to put their stuff in a box. I bet my lunch money that an employee is far more likely to shape up and deliver in line with expectations when they aren't afraid each day they walk into the office may be their last. I think this gives employees more chance to succeed, not less. More transparency isn't always beneficial.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    Putting aside everything else, having a formal performance-management plan, in which those put on it will be informed of that fact, normally means that most employees will have some evidence for not feeling afraid that each day they walk into the office may be their last.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      There is a plan, and the manager will hold employees to it, the difference is they aren't proactively saying "if you don't complete these steps, you can see yourself out." At that point the manager has usually already, for better or worse, flipped the "bozo bit" on the employee and is very unlikely to attribute any successes and instead over-index on the failures. The vast majority of employees put on a PIP do not successfully complete the PIP.
void_mint 5y ago
> Amazon instructs managers not to tell office employees that they are on a formal performance-management plan that puts their job in jeopardy unless the employee explicitly asks, according to guidance from an Amazon intranet page for managers. This is distinctly not a "Performance Management Plan", as the plan involves the employee and provides clear guidelines for success. If you're concealing that they're on a PIP at all, it's not a PIP, it's literally just the declaration that you intend to fire someone you deem low performing. edit And I'll add, I don't think they're legally obligated to tell a person they're not performing to their desired standard, as at-will employment, but it just seems silly to call something a PIP that is actually not at all a PIP.
- potatolicious 5y ago
  > but it just seems silly to call something a PIP that is actually not at all a PIP. Or it's too good at being a PIP ;) Many PIPs (in my experience: most PIPs) are not good faith attempts to allow a poorly-performing employee to improve. The decision to fire them was made before the PIP was issued, the PIP is just documentation to protect the company in the case of a lawsuit. Amazon's approach here - if correctly reported - seems like it takes the step of embracing a PIP for what it actually is, by making it purely a documentation/justification task and eschewing the (often make-believe) step of letting employees fulfill the requirements of the PIP. Overall I'm very much against non-transparent PIPs. Short of gross behavior, employees deserve to know if they are going to be let go for performance and prepare an exit plan. Not to mention PIPs are often arbitrary and capricious - not every employee on a PIP is actually poorly-performing. At the very least it gives people time to jump ship.
  - void_mint 5y ago
    The silliness is in the pretending its even a pip at all. It's not. Management is just reporting low performance to HR, which is neither a process for improvement nor newsworthy. It's specifically anti-employee, but it's not news. Amazon has always been anti-employee.
  - kjsingh 5y ago
    To correct the point, this is about Focus/Dev plan which an SDM undergoes and all this is pre-PIP. In this case he just highlights the org leadership, not HR.

tannedNerd 5y ago

What’s the true nature of the concealing? The fact that some managers flout the guidance that Amazon provides to not tell people they are on a PIP? I’ve never heard of another company doing that, much less would want to work for one where that is the official guidance to managers! If you might label it a hit price, I don’t think it’s that controversial to label you as Amazon apologist.

DougBTX 5y ago
In the small section where they quote Amazon’s perspective, it says: > tell the employee that their performance is not meeting expectations Then the rest of the article is all quotes about employees who are not sure if they are meeting expectations or not. Are managers just not following this guidance, or is there some other rule that says the opposite of this quote?
- tannedNerd 5y ago
  Not meet expectations is a widely different world than PIP especially if the signals you are getting otherwise make you feel like you are performing well. Managers are clearly told by amazon to communicate as little as possible about underperforming if employees can be on secret PIP for 12 months…

tablespoon 5y ago

> It’s not a “conceal” as it is a lack of discussion. Lack of discussion is concealment. Knowing you're on a formal PIP is to know whatever performance issues your manager might be telling you about are actually serious and that your job is on the line. It's my understanding that formal tracking of performance issues is frequently a CYA step prior to termination.

arcticbull 5y ago
> "Amazon instructs managers not to tell office employees that they are on a formal performance-management plan that puts their job in jeopardy unless the employee explicitly asks, according to guidance from an Amazon intranet page for managers." The fact is the PIP hasn't put their job in jeopardy, it was their not meeting expectations that put their job in jeopardy. The reality is once you're there, it's (a) probably obvious due to your manager's consistent displeasure and (b) almost impossible to get out of either way because even if the manager is wrong the employer will side with the manager. The PIP itself is, as you say, just procedural backside-covering to paper up a decision that was already made. > Lack of discussion is concealment. With that in mind, is it really better to torture an employee with a set of steps you know they won't execute to your satisfaction anyways and dole out false hope? It seems far more humane to let them know it isn't working out and to put their stuff in a box. I bet my lunch money that an employee is far more likely to shape up and deliver in line with expectations when they aren't afraid each day they walk into the office may be their last. I think this gives employees more chance to succeed, not less. More transparency isn't always beneficial.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  Putting aside everything else, having a formal performance-management plan, in which those put on it will be informed of that fact, normally means that most employees will have some evidence for not feeling afraid that each day they walk into the office may be their last.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    There is a plan, and the manager will hold employees to it, the difference is they aren't proactively saying "if you don't complete these steps, you can see yourself out." At that point the manager has usually already, for better or worse, flipped the "bozo bit" on the employee and is very unlikely to attribute any successes and instead over-index on the failures. The vast majority of employees put on a PIP do not successfully complete the PIP.

void_mint 5y ago

> Amazon instructs managers not to tell office employees that they are on a formal performance-management plan that puts their job in jeopardy unless the employee explicitly asks, according to guidance from an Amazon intranet page for managers. This is distinctly not a "Performance Management Plan", as the plan involves the employee and provides clear guidelines for success. If you're concealing that they're on a PIP at all, it's not a PIP, it's literally just the declaration that you intend to fire someone you deem low performing. edit And I'll add, I don't think they're legally obligated to tell a person they're not performing to their desired standard, as at-will employment, but it just seems silly to call something a PIP that is actually not at all a PIP.

potatolicious 5y ago
> but it just seems silly to call something a PIP that is actually not at all a PIP. Or it's too good at being a PIP ;) Many PIPs (in my experience: most PIPs) are not good faith attempts to allow a poorly-performing employee to improve. The decision to fire them was made before the PIP was issued, the PIP is just documentation to protect the company in the case of a lawsuit. Amazon's approach here - if correctly reported - seems like it takes the step of embracing a PIP for what it actually is, by making it purely a documentation/justification task and eschewing the (often make-believe) step of letting employees fulfill the requirements of the PIP. Overall I'm very much against non-transparent PIPs. Short of gross behavior, employees deserve to know if they are going to be let go for performance and prepare an exit plan. Not to mention PIPs are often arbitrary and capricious - not every employee on a PIP is actually poorly-performing. At the very least it gives people time to jump ship.
- void_mint 5y ago
  The silliness is in the pretending its even a pip at all. It's not. Management is just reporting low performance to HR, which is neither a process for improvement nor newsworthy. It's specifically anti-employee, but it's not news. Amazon has always been anti-employee.
- kjsingh 5y ago
  To correct the point, this is about Focus/Dev plan which an SDM undergoes and all this is pre-PIP. In this case he just highlights the org leadership, not HR.