4 ms·

> 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 employ

> 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.

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.