3 ms·

The key difference is that she was never told she was being fired. If the manager had simply said “hey this isn’t working for xyz, we are going to put you in a

The key difference is that she was never told she was being fired. If the manager had simply said “hey this isn’t working for xyz, we are going to put you in a minimal role for 3 months to give you time to look for something else”, that would be generous. By not telling her, it’s a waste of everyone’s time and money. She figures it out at some point on her own, and feels disrespected (rightfully), that the manager didn’t have the balls to tell her. Additionally the manager hurts the company by having this employee just there for who knows how long.

galangalalgol 4y ago
That is a very good point. If it had been communicated even informally that would have been so much better.
giaour 4y ago
I imagine bosses engage in "quiet firing" specifically in order to avoid difficult conversations. Keeping someone on the payroll AND explaining that the role isn't working out seems like the worst of both worlds for a confrontation-averse manager! I think what you propose is pretty similar to the system in place at Amazon (at least ~2019, when I left AWS). It was common knowledge (or at least was widely assumed) that the most likely outcome of a PIP was dismissal, so being put on a PIP was treated as notice that you should look for a new job.
- Shindi 4y ago
  I think in the context of communicating bad news, the PIP system Amazon had sounds like it sucks, but at least it was a way to communicate that you should find another job. The problem with the person in this article is that there was no communication at all. It was extremely wishy washy. Btw if you are confrontation averse, you should not be managing anyone ever.
  - giaour 4y ago
    > Btw if you are confrontation averse, you should not be managing anyone ever. 100%, but that requires that their manager be willing to have a difficult conversation with them. It’s not impossible that your whole reporting chain can be staffed with spineless, chickenshit managers.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

galangalalgol 4y ago

That is a very good point. If it had been communicated even informally that would have been so much better.

giaour 4y ago

I imagine bosses engage in "quiet firing" specifically in order to avoid difficult conversations. Keeping someone on the payroll AND explaining that the role isn't working out seems like the worst of both worlds for a confrontation-averse manager! I think what you propose is pretty similar to the system in place at Amazon (at least ~2019, when I left AWS). It was common knowledge (or at least was widely assumed) that the most likely outcome of a PIP was dismissal, so being put on a PIP was treated as notice that you should look for a new job.

Shindi 4y ago
I think in the context of communicating bad news, the PIP system Amazon had sounds like it sucks, but at least it was a way to communicate that you should find another job. The problem with the person in this article is that there was no communication at all. It was extremely wishy washy. Btw if you are confrontation averse, you should not be managing anyone ever.
- giaour 4y ago
  > Btw if you are confrontation averse, you should not be managing anyone ever. 100%, but that requires that their manager be willing to have a difficult conversation with them. It’s not impossible that your whole reporting chain can be staffed with spineless, chickenshit managers.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]