> Keep the "build a case against the employee so we can fire them without a lawsuit", ditch the "actually trying to improve their performance" I'm less optimis

> Keep the "build a case against the employee so we can fire them without a lawsuit", ditch the "actually trying to improve their performance" I'm less optimistic. I see two main uses for PIPS. 1) 3rd parties usually get involved in communicating the performance issues and expectations. 2) It explicitly documents failures if an employee doesn't improve. I'm assuming employees usually only pass the PIP if communication is the major issue. But a manager should communicate performance concerns before starting an official PIP process. I'm not confident that a well intentioned PIP process will lead to a large minority of employees passing it. Documenting failures only helps in firing someone. It isn't a benefit to the individual engineer.