4 ms·
Look at how their boss responded. If it wasn’t about the equity, why would they be so mad? The point of the PIP is generally to remove the employee.
by mattgreenrocks 3y ago
Look at how their boss responded.
If it wasn’t about the equity, why would they be so mad? The point of the PIP is generally to remove the employee.
- pierat 3y agoNo, a PIP is about creating a culture of fear, so that management can PIP anybody with no or manufactured reasons, and control workforce with loss of job. And it has the double advantage of 'id you leave under PIP, you lose a bunch of money'. It's 100% about culture of fear and control.
- cpitman 3y agoMaybe it was that the manager was being pressured to PIP a certain percentage of people, and instead pushed back really hard to retain this person because they wanted to retain them instead. Before spending their political capital, they asked the employee if they were committed to the long haul. In the end, they went to bat for the author and then ended up in the same place. They could have just PIP'd them with a lot less effort. The article doesn't make the reason clear, but this seems more likely to me than vesting stock.
- kortilla 3y agoIf that were the case you wouldn’t even mention it to the person or strip them of their direct reports
- mattgreenrocks 3y agoYeah. I read that as the manager taking away their ability to beat the PIP under the guise of “focus.”