7 ms·

PIP is a Performance Improvement Plan. It's not a Google thing, these things are common in corporate America. The employee is asked to sign a document that adm

by neilk 18y ago

PIP is a Performance Improvement Plan. It's not a Google thing, these things are common in corporate America. The employee is asked to sign a document that admits they are underperforming, with the promise that they can turn the situation around through their own efforts. In practice, the PIP is used to provide an evidence trail to fire someone. PIP is not the same thing as being laid off. In a layoff, you sometimes can get your boss to sign a letter that states this was NOT termination due to poor performance.

davidw 18y ago
Wow... sounds like something that involves lots of TPS reports.
- gaius 18y ago
  You may joke about it, but these aren't a joking matter. The ultimate function of the HR department is to prevent management from being sued. If an employee who has been around for a few years and has a good history is suddenly put on such a plan it means some manager has decided that they simply don't like them. It's turning the resources of the organization into a mechanism for bullying an individual. Never, ever sign one, and start researching the law around unfair dismissal.
  - davidw 18y ago
    You're right, I guess, but ... yuck. I suppose that's another reason why I prefer smaller companies. I think companies ought to be free to hire and fire who they want, when they want, even when it's a stupid decision.
    - ambition 18y ago
      I'd like to think that too. But then I think: If a company had a legal right to fire me whenever they wanted, and I had a mortgage or family, I wouldn't work for them unless they agreed to waive that right and give me several months notice (or severance).
      - davidw 18y ago
        I think there should be a social safety net too, that all profitable companies pay into. That way, you're not screwed if you're fired, but the company is still free to act as they see fit. Perhaps they're even less constrained in some ways, because they know they're not throwing you to the wolves, so to speak. Contractual negotiations, like you mention, might also be a sensible approach to providing something similar, but they would only tend to cover workers with enough bargaining power to obtain them, either by being really valuable, or via unions or something. In Italy, companies, not the government, form the social safety net, because it's nearly impossible to fire people. This has created a huge mess - people are afraid to change jobs, people work for years doing stuff they're not good at or don't like, companies can't hire young people... It's a bad solution.
        LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
        In theory unemployment pay is similar to this system, but in practice... maybe not so much. Personally I don't know anyone who's ever received severance pay either. In general I think "at will" employment is a net win, but it's certainly not a friendly system.
        gaius 18y ago
        It is tho' a system in which everyone knows at all times where they stand. There's no need for backhanded techniques like "performance plans" that are only really about stripping the employee of what legal protection they do have.
        deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]
      - jbarciauskas 18y ago
        I recommend you learn about At-will employment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment "At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can break the relationship with no liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargain (i.e. a union)." This is the default employment relationship in the US. Most states, in particular California, have implied contract or good faith exceptions to this, where an employee has more protection, but the law is different in every state, and if you do not have an explicit contract, you should probably operate under the assumption that your company can terminate you at any time, without cause.
    - FlorinAndrei 18y ago
      Small companies can be just as bad.
jacquesm 18y ago
That sounds like simple blackmail to me. Sign this now or we'll fire your ass today, if you sign we may not fire you in the future, but we definitely will be able to a lot easier. You lose either way.
- neilk 18y ago
  Actually, in my experience with a PIP, it doesn't threaten you'll be fired today. It's emotional blackmail. I was told, in black and white, that I sucked and I was holding everyone back. For anyone with any self-doubt or need for social approval, a statement like that will feel like a ton of bricks. But then they offer a path to redemption: sign a document, then complete these tasks, and all will be well again. Since I have a programmer's ego I feel I can code my way out of any situation. So I signed. And I did so knowing full well that I was doing something against my interests. But oddly, at the time, that didn't matter as much to me as redeeming myself in other people's eyes. If this ever happens to you, the thing to recognize is that at that moment, the company is no longer your friend (if it ever was) and from now on, every dealing with you is probably going to be backhanded. Loyalty and pride in accomplishment are suddenly bad traits for you to indulge in. The best option may be to sign and slack off while you job-hunt. Or, if you are quick to realize that there is no way out, to offer to go away, in exchange for a decent amount of severance. Either way, I was foolish to sign without getting a lawyer to examine the document first.
  - jacquesm 18y ago
    So, in your opinion, what would have happened if you had not signed ?
    - neilk 18y ago
      I don't know. Perhaps someone else here has experience with that? Another tactic to get rid of people is to simply take away all their important work. They aren't advancing in the company, and they are losing status in the team. Many people will just quit, or make a lateral move to some other team. The latter option might have been open to me.
  - 18y ago

by neilk 18y ago

davidw 18y ago

Wow... sounds like something that involves lots of TPS reports.

gaius 18y ago
You may joke about it, but these aren't a joking matter. The ultimate function of the HR department is to prevent management from being sued. If an employee who has been around for a few years and has a good history is suddenly put on such a plan it means some manager has decided that they simply don't like them. It's turning the resources of the organization into a mechanism for bullying an individual. Never, ever sign one, and start researching the law around unfair dismissal.
- davidw 18y ago
  You're right, I guess, but ... yuck. I suppose that's another reason why I prefer smaller companies. I think companies ought to be free to hire and fire who they want, when they want, even when it's a stupid decision.
  - ambition 18y ago
    I'd like to think that too. But then I think: If a company had a legal right to fire me whenever they wanted, and I had a mortgage or family, I wouldn't work for them unless they agreed to waive that right and give me several months notice (or severance).
    - davidw 18y ago
      I think there should be a social safety net too, that all profitable companies pay into. That way, you're not screwed if you're fired, but the company is still free to act as they see fit. Perhaps they're even less constrained in some ways, because they know they're not throwing you to the wolves, so to speak. Contractual negotiations, like you mention, might also be a sensible approach to providing something similar, but they would only tend to cover workers with enough bargaining power to obtain them, either by being really valuable, or via unions or something. In Italy, companies, not the government, form the social safety net, because it's nearly impossible to fire people. This has created a huge mess - people are afraid to change jobs, people work for years doing stuff they're not good at or don't like, companies can't hire young people... It's a bad solution.
      - LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
        In theory unemployment pay is similar to this system, but in practice... maybe not so much. Personally I don't know anyone who's ever received severance pay either. In general I think "at will" employment is a net win, but it's certainly not a friendly system.
        gaius 18y ago
        It is tho' a system in which everyone knows at all times where they stand. There's no need for backhanded techniques like "performance plans" that are only really about stripping the employee of what legal protection they do have.
      - deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]
    - jbarciauskas 18y ago
      I recommend you learn about At-will employment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment "At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can break the relationship with no liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargain (i.e. a union)." This is the default employment relationship in the US. Most states, in particular California, have implied contract or good faith exceptions to this, where an employee has more protection, but the law is different in every state, and if you do not have an explicit contract, you should probably operate under the assumption that your company can terminate you at any time, without cause.
  - FlorinAndrei 18y ago
    Small companies can be just as bad.

jacquesm 18y ago

That sounds like simple blackmail to me. Sign this now or we'll fire your ass today, if you sign we may not fire you in the future, but we definitely will be able to a lot easier. You lose either way.

neilk 18y ago
Actually, in my experience with a PIP, it doesn't threaten you'll be fired today. It's emotional blackmail. I was told, in black and white, that I sucked and I was holding everyone back. For anyone with any self-doubt or need for social approval, a statement like that will feel like a ton of bricks. But then they offer a path to redemption: sign a document, then complete these tasks, and all will be well again. Since I have a programmer's ego I feel I can code my way out of any situation. So I signed. And I did so knowing full well that I was doing something against my interests. But oddly, at the time, that didn't matter as much to me as redeeming myself in other people's eyes. If this ever happens to you, the thing to recognize is that at that moment, the company is no longer your friend (if it ever was) and from now on, every dealing with you is probably going to be backhanded. Loyalty and pride in accomplishment are suddenly bad traits for you to indulge in. The best option may be to sign and slack off while you job-hunt. Or, if you are quick to realize that there is no way out, to offer to go away, in exchange for a decent amount of severance. Either way, I was foolish to sign without getting a lawyer to examine the document first.
- jacquesm 18y ago
  So, in your opinion, what would have happened if you had not signed ?
  - neilk 18y ago
    I don't know. Perhaps someone else here has experience with that? Another tactic to get rid of people is to simply take away all their important work. They aren't advancing in the company, and they are losing status in the team. Many people will just quit, or make a lateral move to some other team. The latter option might have been open to me.
- 18y ago