5 ms·
I’ve only worked in the public sector and have only had to PIP people a few times. It’s almost always a sign that you need to get out. I’ve only done it when
by spaceisballer 5y ago
I’ve only worked in the public sector and have only had to PIP people a few times. It’s almost always a sign that you need to get out. I’ve only done it when I’m at wits end with a person. They all ended up quitting before we got to the 90 days but yeah as said it’s basically a CYA move. Likely the people are low performing enough by some measure you can fire them but it’s sort of a last chance thing. And it documents where they need to improve and what they need to do, so all that is good for the employee if they want to improve (and I do believe nobody wants to do a bad job).
- ghaff 5y agoI have a good friend who manages a fairly large group at a (mostly) government subcontractor. Their description is similar. A PIP comes after someone has been completely unresponsive to requests of various kinds, isn't doing good (if any) work, etc. My sense is that a PIP, in this case, is a reluctant last resort after months of this--and hardly ever works.
- Jemaclus 5y ago> and hardly ever works. Technically, there are two desirable outcomes to a PIP: 1) the employee improves and no longer needs to be on a PIP (rare) 2) the company successfully fires the employee and doesn't get sued because they covered their ass with a PIP From HR's perspective (and the manager's), it is indeed the reluctant last resort, but it's essentially a win/win for the company. Either the employee improves, or they can fire them while minimizing legal risk. In other words, it fulfills its intent quite nicely. It just doesn't always end positively for the employee. So I guess in that sense, it depends on which way you look at it.