4 ms·
Keeping low performers on a team (or ones that yield "failed projects" consistently) isn't good for the rest of the team and/or your own personal stress and pro
by ugh123 2y ago
Keeping low performers on a team (or ones that yield "failed projects" consistently) isn't good for the rest of the team and/or your own personal stress and productivity (as a manager).
- cqqxo4zV46cp 2y agoIt depends. Sometimes people just need a kick in the ass. Sometimes they have a blind spot that needs to be pointed out. People should be given a chance to improve. In terms of action required, there’s often very little difference between helping an under-achiever hit the mark, and helping an adequate performer grow. It’s just a question of expectations. I argue that a failure to ever do the former makes one a bad manager. That’s not to say that they should be given infinite leeway, but nobody here has made that argument, so… Sometimes a PIP is just a PIP. I’m sick to death of the increasingly clickbaity articles that cause employees to preemptively put their shields up as a result of painting every workplace as being a very particular sort of…terrible corporate America.
- mgarfias 2y agoSometimes the employee comes down with a chronic medical problem that affects performance.
- apple4ever 2y agoTotally agree. I've had to put people on PIPs and also had to decide instead of a PIP just cut them. It's never fun, but these people were long time underperformers. I'm sure in some places they do PIPs as a formality, but I never seen that and I would never do that.
- ugh123 2y ago>That’s not to say that they should be given infinite leeway, but nobody here has made that argument, so… I interpreted this from OP: >Both failed… I would have much preferred keeping them to finding and training someone new as giving infinite leeway, like "i'd rather not go through the hiring process and just 'deal with it'".