> “A lot of the time, they’re done,” Gadea said of underperformers. “They’re burned out, they need a break. And now you’re asking them to work harder.”
I've seen that once, most recently.
Before that, it was somebody who was trying to get let go on performance grounds, thinking that it would lead to severance (didn't work out).
Before that, it was somebody who got put on PIP, but I'm not sure why, and they were personally devastated and then quit.
Telling somebody that they're fucking up and that they need to improve is one thing, that's just feedback. Creating a structure that's officially "if you don't do X, Y, Z, then you're fired"... just fire them.
People can take you to court for anything; pip is good way to protect against claims of wrongful termination. I agree in principle that at-will should make this unnecessary, but the reality of a litigious society makes pips a good move.
I don’t understand why you would PIP a person and keep them waffling around for months on end collecting paychecks when you can just severance them out and pay less in time and money?
We do it because we legitimately want them to improve, and the last resort is "if we can't work it out by X, we can no longer employ you". I don't think we've done it more than once or twice, though, because increasing the directness of the feedback that the employee is not doing well has generally worked.
There is nothing to hate here. I have given numerous PIP's as a manager and only actually fired once. The purpose of a PIP is to improve, not to fire a person.
How on earth can you be a good manager and not realize that saying "your performance is shit, we're going to fire you unless you take this course and we deem you've passed" is totally and utterly soul destroying to a person?
A PIP should be the last chance to improve. You should have had many chances before that, with lots of clear feedback. Of course it's soul-destroying, but laying them off is worse.
I've never been put under a PIP, but if I were, I'd be looking for a way out. The company has told me I suck and, even if I recovered, I'd be concerned that just having had it there would hurt any future progression I had in the company.
A manager should be communicating expectations regularly. PIP conventionally means "we're firing you in a few months," so you're just threatening to fire people euphemistically.
Not in management so I can't argue with you on that. But it seems like at the time the PIP is summoned, the person has somehow made to fireable-grounds.
I think the PIP is hated because it ruins the illusion of camaraderie, like an ultimatum in marriage. But really, unlike a marriage you shouldn't have that illusion in the first place, you were always a replaceable cog whose only value is what service you can do for your boss. If you always had that perspective then the PIP can be seen as a helpful encouragement to improve rather than a precursor to an actual firing.
I've seen that once, most recently.
Before that, it was somebody who was trying to get let go on performance grounds, thinking that it would lead to severance (didn't work out).
Before that, it was somebody who got put on PIP, but I'm not sure why, and they were personally devastated and then quit.
Telling somebody that they're fucking up and that they need to improve is one thing, that's just feedback. Creating a structure that's officially "if you don't do X, Y, Z, then you're fired"... just fire them.
reply