[oofabz]

>why would they be trying to actively get rid of people?

It's extremely demoralizing to work with people who are bad at their job. It makes me feel as though my hard work is unappreciated, because someone who is not working hard gets the same treatment.

Sometimes the employee is slacking off, sometimes they are bad at their job. Either way, if their failure to contribute is bringing the rest of the team down, they have to go. Otherwise, the good people leave to get away from the bad people.

[giantrobot]

> It's extremely demoralizing to work with people who are bad at their job.

You're assuming various PIPs are being used in good faith by the employer. In a lot of big companies there's a nebulous and hand-wave-y criteria for putting someone on a PIP and then there's no clear path for the employee off the PIP. Too often PIPs are like "mean girl" shit lists. You can get on one without knowing it and have little to no agency in getting off one.

For companies that do stack ranking, you can end up on a PIP just for happening to be at the bottom of the stack for no real fault of your own. The employer is then happy to dick you with compensation for as long as they can justify keeping you on a PIP.

It's more demoralizing to end up black balled and screwed over on compensation than just being told outright you're on a PIP and there's some particular goals to hit to get off. Not everyone can just jump ship after they get stiffed on compensation after a review. The goal is to demoralize people so they quit so they don't have to fire them and potentially end up with some wrongful termination lawsuit.

[havkom]

I have encountered co-workers who bring a clear negative contribution to the team. I am not taking of not making enough of a value for the company for what they are paid but rather damaging the company even if they were paid nothing. These people have all been eventually let go by the different companies I have worked for.

[vjdingdong]

That would be true. However, the word excellence, especially in IT companies is a relative term at best. We have seen others in this forum refer to Amazon's work as fixing broken code that's hardly maintainable. Hardly what one would call 'excellence' particularly given how exalted a position Amazon occupies as a desirable employer.

You could have a bunch of OOPs-fanatics who will hate the functional programmer who does things differently. Toxic culture (lack of self-awareness means that 99% of people don't know they are participating/creating/perpetuating the toxicity) means this functional programmer is demoralizing the team.

That's how objective IT is. Its culture wars of this sort - misplaced fanatic sincerity and close-mindedness, or worse mean-ness. And its demoralizing to the majority. Hence the PIP. Its like a dystopian landscape.

[Gibbon1]

> We have seen others in this forum refer to Amazon's work as fixing broken code that's hardly maintainable.

Reminds me of someone that worked at a vendor of Semiconductor ATE equipment. The codebase was a total hopeless trash fire. Watching him flail and fail gave me the impression that working for a place like that, actually caring about anything is a liability.

You should only care about three things. Your mental health. The money you are making. What your boss wants. You should treat anything you are working on as a booger to get rid of as quickly as possible.

'As you are closing the ticket you may feel a sting. That's pride fucking with you'

[greedo]

So many companies I deal with have extremely poor management teams and practices. Things like stack-ranking, vague job descriptions/responsibilities, managers who aren't technical, the list is endemic to IT.

You want demoralizing? How about being an excellent employee, but being told that you can only get a COLA raise because your manager has been told only 2 out of a team of 15 can "exceed standards?" And these standards are as vague as HR can possibly make them.

So unless you're sociopathic, you try to "improve" which generally means kissing up to your boss. Doing a better job revolves around keeping your boss happy, regardless of whether that means your real work is being done at an "exceeds" level. Find out what metrics he considers important, and focus almost exclusively on them.

If you're sociopathic, you do this, while sabotaging your coworkers. It's pretty easy to do; keep important information away from them, point out any flaws/mistakes they make, etc.

Any large organization will end up like this if they follow traditional HR guidelines for performance evals. It's part of a competitive environment.

The only place I've seen it work better/differently was when the entire team was evaluated. That helped prevent the Machiavellian sabotage, but did allow lower performers to benefit from the work of the higher performers. But that would happen anyway; you can't fire everyone. And the motivation of the coworkers shifts from competitive to cooperative. Helping others learn new things, overcome issues, etc. When management gets behind this, it's amazing, but most managers and executives are discouraged from trying new things.