3 ms·

It 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 impr

It 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 ago
Sometimes the employee comes down with a chronic medical problem that affects performance.
apple4ever 2y ago
Totally 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'".