5 ms·

PIPs are a tool for managing out employees that don’t perform well or don’t yield to often abusive company demands like e.g. overtime or pissed of somebody in m

by blub 4y ago

PIPs are a tool for managing out employees that don’t perform well or don’t yield to often abusive company demands like e.g. overtime or pissed of somebody in management or connected to management.

tyingq 4y ago
Also potentially just the unlucky selected person for a forced rank/yank exercise when everyone is doing their job, but some percentage is selected to oust.
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  I’ve always called them sacrificial lambs.
phpisthebest 4y ago
Depends on the company but they are commonly used to ensure managers are not just firing someone that they are "pissed off" at, people are cynical about them but they are designed to ensure managers have to document the poor performance, and have notified the employee they are under performing... I have seen companies that lack this process and witnessed employees getting very positive feedback from managers even in performance reviews, only to be shell shocked with a termination for poor performance. Given the option to have a PiP process or not I would rather have one. I have seen employees go on a PIP and then improve their way out of it. I have seen them be used as a tool to justify termination, and in one case the PIP ended up revealing fraud. I think the point is, if a company is going to abuse employee, that will happen with or with out a PIP, but even with abusive management having that process IMO is better than not
- biztos 4y ago
  Interesting factoid from Europe: at least in Germany, you are effectively unhirable if you are in a PiP. You actually have to warrant that you are not, before any company of any size will consider hiring you, and of course lying about that would be a firing offense. I get the logic, but as an American I was surprised… I was never PiPed but I too would have assumed it was better than the alternative. Not always!
  - sveme 4y ago
    I worked for small and large companies, both German and American, never has anyone asked me whether I had been in a PIP. Have never even encountered something like this in Germany.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    Interesting, in most states in the US it would be illegal for an employer to reveal to another employer that the employee was on a PiP, I am surprised that is allowed in the EU with all the privacy laws. The US has lots of anti-black listing laws in almost every state that would make something like that very very illegal
    - nibbleshifter 4y ago
      Its also not legal in Germany, in fact, its pretty impossible to legally give a bad reference. HR departments have a workaround though - instead of a bad reference, they will simply confirm that yes, you worked there. Nothing else.
      - tharkun__ 4y ago
        Are reference letters no longer done in Germany? When I was there that was how this was done. Basically you would always get a reference letter when ending employment. The reference letter's language always sounds good, as in not giving a bad reference. However, a reference letter that states things like "employee X delivered his tasks on time and to the satisfaction of work standards" basically means that he's a slacker that does mediocre work at best. It has to say something like "We are ultimately saddened for employee X leaving because he always delivered his work early and to the highest standard thinkable". These are bad made-up English language examples to show the difference in language but there's basically template language HR departments use for this.
        _nalply 4y ago
        Yes, this was a thing already thirty years ago. There's even a term for them: coded reference letters. I even got a reference letter explicitly declaring that it doesn't contain hidden codes. https://www.arbeitszeugnis.de/presse/geheimcodeliste.pdf https://www.arbeitszeugnis.de/presse/geheimcodeliste.pdf (German) This shows that there's a conflict: law forbids to discriminate someone with a bad review of their capability, motivation or fitness. But people always seem to try to work around this prohibition. Like giving a friendly declaration that someone worked at a company if they weren't impressed and give an enthusiastic recommendation in the other case.
- csydas 4y ago
  I'm actually shocked that so many companies handle performance improvement and coaching so badly. We implemented a coaching system for our support team about a year ago with the explicit purpose that individual coaching does not directly affect KPI, and that as much coaching can and should be done freely without worry of impacting the support team. The system tracks both the person being coached and their team lead who does the coaching. The coaching is directed to be as instructive as possible, that it's not about punishment, but better ways of handling specific technical situations or adherence to the support policy. Long term reviews consider not just the person being coached, but also the leader as well, as a high number of coaching options across multiple persons on the same team would suggest an issue with the leadership as the root cause, and more qualitative reviews focus on that element as well. The entire point is to ensure that Performance Improvement Plans don't have to be a thing, and that there is constructive feedback flowing into the system. Adoption was slow, but with strict adherence to what a coaching instruction must include, we've seen exceptionally high improvement and much calmer conversations when mistakes are made since the support persons realize "this isn't a KPI penalty or a PIP; it's just trying to prevent that." Having the system "open", i.e., the support persons can see every entry they have at any time with a few clicks of a button means no secrets. It's a lot of documenting, but so far we're seeing a ton of success with it and positive feedback to having this process for constructive criticism, and the focus on also considering "this might be a leadership issue" also helps add some comfort.
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    I've seen this work well, especially with some flexibility. Had a very dramatic underperformer on a team that sat near me. His lead went down every paperwork rabbit hole to get him fired, and the improvement plan was the last step. He simply couldn't knock out a simple backlog item without a lot of help. I'm not sure how he graduated with a degree. But the improvement plan had him doing some ops work as well as development, and low and behold he was a natural born ops wizard... It all made sense to him. Had never heard of k8s or helm and was spitting out helm charts, docker files, conan files etc. in less than a month, burning down the whole teams ops backlog.
    - 4y ago
- csa 4y ago
  > they are designed to ensure managers have to document the poor performance I have had very close interactions (details below) with managers who completely fabricated “poor performance” in order to PIP the target out of a job. In both cases, I had the PIP target secretly work in tandem with a star employee to produce work that was considered top notch work up and down the management chain. In both cases, the manager took a cursory look at the work and completely dressed down the PIP target verbally and in writing with little or no constructive feedback. One manager was fired, and the other manager was out to pasture to work on meaningless solo projects (necessary due to organizational reasons). I am not sure how common this is, but managers who are slightly more intelligent about it can fairly easily set up a PIP target to fail while technically providing constructive feedback. One of the cultural problems in this org was that pretty much 100% of the managers were bad/inexperienced/untrained, so the unwritten rule was to not monitor the administrative actions of other managers. I was brought in basically to protect them from potential lawsuits that would have had merit — they were incapable of doing this internally. > I think the point is, if a company is going to abuse employee, that will happen with or with out a PIP Agreed. > but even with abusive management having that process IMO is better than not Sort of, imho. What I always tell people is that they should consider their PIP period as a type of severance and look for another job aggressively while they are on it. In the handful of orgs that do PIPs well, the folks will usually know that the process is not punitive. I will add that I am fairly certain they every relatively large org I’ve known that does PIPs well also gives folks an opportunity to transfer if the job is not a good fit (assuming the target is not a bad apple, which is a selection problem). Anyway, I agree that PIPs could and should be an effective tool for remediation. That said, I am not sure it’s any better than undocumented managerial capriciousness and malfeasance since usually all it really does in these situations is slow down the bad behavior slightly. If anyone gets randomly fired by a bad manager in an org with no PIP, they are probably better off just being out of the org in general rather than suffering for a few months in a sham.
lloydatkinson 4y ago
I’ve never ever ever seen a PIP used in a positive way. It’s almost always been a way for petty toxic management that resented an employee not tolerating an abusive environment.
- tartoran 4y ago
  Of course PIP got a huge potential to be abused, it’s like a weapon in the hands of management. I’ve never been under a PIP but if I were I’d urgently look for work.
  - nibbleshifter 4y ago
    That's what I did - once I was put on a PIP, I knew it was time to jump before I was pushed.
    - Firmwarrior 4y ago
      Man, it's so frustrating. I just wanted to work hard, do a good job, and make a comfortable living.. but I got repeatedly screwed over by corporate politics several levels above me at my first couple of tech jobs after college. I was forced into learning how to play corporate politics just to stay employed, and now I make 6x as much money and work maybe 1/3rd as much as I used to. If these companies weren't comprised of weasels and wannabe tyrants, I think everyone would be a lot better off. I guess being a manipulative, greedy asshole is just human nature though.
- thelittleone 4y ago
  I got asked if I'd be willing to take a guy on pip onto my team. The guy was senior to me when I started but he languished a bit so I was now senior. He was good technically but terrible with internal politics. It was a bit of an adjustment but we worked hard and managed a turn around. He was surprised and thankful for the genuine interest in his career and well being. He never became an A player, but he stayed on a few more years and stock splits and we remain in contact 15 years later.
nibbleshifter 4y ago
Last time I got put on a PIP was for refusing an entirely unreasonable request to be on call, and leaving my work phone at home during that period. I started making plans to resign pretty soon after being put on the PIP.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  I dunno, can't you just say "Dude, if you put me on the PIP, I'll have trouble leaving. Since what you're proposing amounts to disciplinary measures, I'll be quitting anyway; so why make it harder for me to get a new job?" The dismissal process for underperformance here (UK) requires the employer to give warnings: one verbal, and two written, I think. The employer is also expected to help the employee meet the performance target. The PIP sounds like a checklist version of that help - it's not meant to help the employee, it's meant to hustle along the dismissal process. I'd take a job flipping burgers, rather than work for a boss that put me on a PIP.
  - Kranar 4y ago
    Quitting and getting terminated have very different consequences. Quitting does not entitle you to EI and could jeopardize severance/termination pay. To lose those benefits due to termination the termination must be for cause, which comes with a very high standard that an employer is exclusively required to justify.
skeeter2020 4y ago
PIPs rarely work but it's the legal system that awards poor performers the equivalent of a year of salary when they're fired that makes them a requirement in the first place.
tallanvor 4y ago
This completely depends on the company. Where I work, PIPs really are designed to give extra structure to the people on them as to what is expected of them and they're designed to be achievable by the average employee without working extra hours. Of course, they're also private, so you only know someone has been on one if they choose to share that information.

by blub 4y ago

tyingq 4y ago

Also potentially just the unlucky selected person for a forced rank/yank exercise when everyone is doing their job, but some percentage is selected to oust.

cjbgkagh 4y ago
I’ve always called them sacrificial lambs.

phpisthebest 4y ago

Depends on the company but they are commonly used to ensure managers are not just firing someone that they are "pissed off" at, people are cynical about them but they are designed to ensure managers have to document the poor performance, and have notified the employee they are under performing... I have seen companies that lack this process and witnessed employees getting very positive feedback from managers even in performance reviews, only to be shell shocked with a termination for poor performance. Given the option to have a PiP process or not I would rather have one. I have seen employees go on a PIP and then improve their way out of it. I have seen them be used as a tool to justify termination, and in one case the PIP ended up revealing fraud. I think the point is, if a company is going to abuse employee, that will happen with or with out a PIP, but even with abusive management having that process IMO is better than not

biztos 4y ago
Interesting factoid from Europe: at least in Germany, you are effectively unhirable if you are in a PiP. You actually have to warrant that you are not, before any company of any size will consider hiring you, and of course lying about that would be a firing offense. I get the logic, but as an American I was surprised… I was never PiPed but I too would have assumed it was better than the alternative. Not always!
- sveme 4y ago
  I worked for small and large companies, both German and American, never has anyone asked me whether I had been in a PIP. Have never even encountered something like this in Germany.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  Interesting, in most states in the US it would be illegal for an employer to reveal to another employer that the employee was on a PiP, I am surprised that is allowed in the EU with all the privacy laws. The US has lots of anti-black listing laws in almost every state that would make something like that very very illegal
  - nibbleshifter 4y ago
    Its also not legal in Germany, in fact, its pretty impossible to legally give a bad reference. HR departments have a workaround though - instead of a bad reference, they will simply confirm that yes, you worked there. Nothing else.
    - tharkun__ 4y ago
      Are reference letters no longer done in Germany? When I was there that was how this was done. Basically you would always get a reference letter when ending employment. The reference letter's language always sounds good, as in not giving a bad reference. However, a reference letter that states things like "employee X delivered his tasks on time and to the satisfaction of work standards" basically means that he's a slacker that does mediocre work at best. It has to say something like "We are ultimately saddened for employee X leaving because he always delivered his work early and to the highest standard thinkable". These are bad made-up English language examples to show the difference in language but there's basically template language HR departments use for this.
      - _nalply 4y ago
        Yes, this was a thing already thirty years ago. There's even a term for them: coded reference letters. I even got a reference letter explicitly declaring that it doesn't contain hidden codes. https://www.arbeitszeugnis.de/presse/geheimcodeliste.pdf https://www.arbeitszeugnis.de/presse/geheimcodeliste.pdf (German) This shows that there's a conflict: law forbids to discriminate someone with a bad review of their capability, motivation or fitness. But people always seem to try to work around this prohibition. Like giving a friendly declaration that someone worked at a company if they weren't impressed and give an enthusiastic recommendation in the other case.
csydas 4y ago
I'm actually shocked that so many companies handle performance improvement and coaching so badly. We implemented a coaching system for our support team about a year ago with the explicit purpose that individual coaching does not directly affect KPI, and that as much coaching can and should be done freely without worry of impacting the support team. The system tracks both the person being coached and their team lead who does the coaching. The coaching is directed to be as instructive as possible, that it's not about punishment, but better ways of handling specific technical situations or adherence to the support policy. Long term reviews consider not just the person being coached, but also the leader as well, as a high number of coaching options across multiple persons on the same team would suggest an issue with the leadership as the root cause, and more qualitative reviews focus on that element as well. The entire point is to ensure that Performance Improvement Plans don't have to be a thing, and that there is constructive feedback flowing into the system. Adoption was slow, but with strict adherence to what a coaching instruction must include, we've seen exceptionally high improvement and much calmer conversations when mistakes are made since the support persons realize "this isn't a KPI penalty or a PIP; it's just trying to prevent that." Having the system "open", i.e., the support persons can see every entry they have at any time with a few clicks of a button means no secrets. It's a lot of documenting, but so far we're seeing a ton of success with it and positive feedback to having this process for constructive criticism, and the focus on also considering "this might be a leadership issue" also helps add some comfort.
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  I've seen this work well, especially with some flexibility. Had a very dramatic underperformer on a team that sat near me. His lead went down every paperwork rabbit hole to get him fired, and the improvement plan was the last step. He simply couldn't knock out a simple backlog item without a lot of help. I'm not sure how he graduated with a degree. But the improvement plan had him doing some ops work as well as development, and low and behold he was a natural born ops wizard... It all made sense to him. Had never heard of k8s or helm and was spitting out helm charts, docker files, conan files etc. in less than a month, burning down the whole teams ops backlog.
  - 4y ago
csa 4y ago
> they are designed to ensure managers have to document the poor performance I have had very close interactions (details below) with managers who completely fabricated “poor performance” in order to PIP the target out of a job. In both cases, I had the PIP target secretly work in tandem with a star employee to produce work that was considered top notch work up and down the management chain. In both cases, the manager took a cursory look at the work and completely dressed down the PIP target verbally and in writing with little or no constructive feedback. One manager was fired, and the other manager was out to pasture to work on meaningless solo projects (necessary due to organizational reasons). I am not sure how common this is, but managers who are slightly more intelligent about it can fairly easily set up a PIP target to fail while technically providing constructive feedback. One of the cultural problems in this org was that pretty much 100% of the managers were bad/inexperienced/untrained, so the unwritten rule was to not monitor the administrative actions of other managers. I was brought in basically to protect them from potential lawsuits that would have had merit — they were incapable of doing this internally. > I think the point is, if a company is going to abuse employee, that will happen with or with out a PIP Agreed. > but even with abusive management having that process IMO is better than not Sort of, imho. What I always tell people is that they should consider their PIP period as a type of severance and look for another job aggressively while they are on it. In the handful of orgs that do PIPs well, the folks will usually know that the process is not punitive. I will add that I am fairly certain they every relatively large org I’ve known that does PIPs well also gives folks an opportunity to transfer if the job is not a good fit (assuming the target is not a bad apple, which is a selection problem). Anyway, I agree that PIPs could and should be an effective tool for remediation. That said, I am not sure it’s any better than undocumented managerial capriciousness and malfeasance since usually all it really does in these situations is slow down the bad behavior slightly. If anyone gets randomly fired by a bad manager in an org with no PIP, they are probably better off just being out of the org in general rather than suffering for a few months in a sham.

lloydatkinson 4y ago

I’ve never ever ever seen a PIP used in a positive way. It’s almost always been a way for petty toxic management that resented an employee not tolerating an abusive environment.

tartoran 4y ago
Of course PIP got a huge potential to be abused, it’s like a weapon in the hands of management. I’ve never been under a PIP but if I were I’d urgently look for work.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  That's what I did - once I was put on a PIP, I knew it was time to jump before I was pushed.
  - Firmwarrior 4y ago
    Man, it's so frustrating. I just wanted to work hard, do a good job, and make a comfortable living.. but I got repeatedly screwed over by corporate politics several levels above me at my first couple of tech jobs after college. I was forced into learning how to play corporate politics just to stay employed, and now I make 6x as much money and work maybe 1/3rd as much as I used to. If these companies weren't comprised of weasels and wannabe tyrants, I think everyone would be a lot better off. I guess being a manipulative, greedy asshole is just human nature though.
thelittleone 4y ago
I got asked if I'd be willing to take a guy on pip onto my team. The guy was senior to me when I started but he languished a bit so I was now senior. He was good technically but terrible with internal politics. It was a bit of an adjustment but we worked hard and managed a turn around. He was surprised and thankful for the genuine interest in his career and well being. He never became an A player, but he stayed on a few more years and stock splits and we remain in contact 15 years later.

nibbleshifter 4y ago

Last time I got put on a PIP was for refusing an entirely unreasonable request to be on call, and leaving my work phone at home during that period. I started making plans to resign pretty soon after being put on the PIP.

denton-scratch 4y ago
I dunno, can't you just say "Dude, if you put me on the PIP, I'll have trouble leaving. Since what you're proposing amounts to disciplinary measures, I'll be quitting anyway; so why make it harder for me to get a new job?" The dismissal process for underperformance here (UK) requires the employer to give warnings: one verbal, and two written, I think. The employer is also expected to help the employee meet the performance target. The PIP sounds like a checklist version of that help - it's not meant to help the employee, it's meant to hustle along the dismissal process. I'd take a job flipping burgers, rather than work for a boss that put me on a PIP.
- Kranar 4y ago
  Quitting and getting terminated have very different consequences. Quitting does not entitle you to EI and could jeopardize severance/termination pay. To lose those benefits due to termination the termination must be for cause, which comes with a very high standard that an employer is exclusively required to justify.

skeeter2020 4y ago

PIPs rarely work but it's the legal system that awards poor performers the equivalent of a year of salary when they're fired that makes them a requirement in the first place.

tallanvor 4y ago

This completely depends on the company. Where I work, PIPs really are designed to give extra structure to the people on them as to what is expected of them and they're designed to be achievable by the average employee without working extra hours. Of course, they're also private, so you only know someone has been on one if they choose to share that information.