[JohnFen]

Interesting.

I'm never been PIP'd myself, but I've seen it happen to many -- and it's never resulted in anything good, nor has it ever seemed as if the purpose was actually to improve anyone's performance. It's usually seems like just a thing that has to be done before you can fire them. Even when the PIP'd employee isn't fired, the PIP remains a scarlet letter on them for the rest of their time at that company.

I'm glad there are companies where this isn't the case! I wonder how common those are.

[aprdm]

I think it's a last resort for someone who isn't listening to a specific feedback well, it requires the manager (IME) to be crystal clear on what's not working well, and how they can improve it. And to follow up on in some cadence (every 3 days) with notes, laser focused. Giving an amount of time for the person to show they can and want to change.

In one of the cases the person who got pip'd got promoted to Staff Eng from Senior within a year, it was mostly about his attitude, not about his technical skills, and he changed completely. I think that person was just not self aware how people didn't enjoy working with him, even if the manager gave feedback, he thought it was funny or something like that.

It was a real "Am I the bad one" moment when the PIP process started. Another one was about how they always went too deep into rabbit holes and never delivered any value, to change the way they approach problems, etc.

I feel feedback from managers is extra challenging in remote environments OR in places where a person has been for too long and is too used to the status quo, and PIPs can help there.

I count myself luck that I haven't worked in companies where PIPs were used as a tool to layoff or fire people, but I also take some of those reports with a grain of salt.

[Volundr]

> think it's a last resort for someone who isn't listening to a specific feedback well

Pretty much this at least when I've used it. What was surprising was I had an employee do a complete 180 when put on a PIP. They had been given lots of feedback, clear guidance, and even a direct, "we've talked about this, and it's putting your job in jeopardy, if this continues you will be fired" conversation prior to the PIP. I honestly expected to fire them and the end and thought I was just crossing my Ts and dotting my 'i's with HR, but to my shock the PIP seemed to shake something loose that nothing else did. All I can think is that putting a clear deadline on it finally got through. When I left a couple years later we were starting to talk about promoting them. Don't know if it ever happened.

I can't assert how other companies and managers use them, but the only time I've ever deployed PIPs is as a "we've talked about this, and this is now your last chance" with the honest intent (even if I'm not expecting it) that if the issues are resolved they are put behind us.

[JohnFen]

You and aprdm have given me a little bit of hope that some larger tech employers (I assume you're both with larger employers as I've never heard of a small employer that did PIPs) are decent when it comes to this sort of thing. It's good to know. Thank you.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

I think it may be a self-reinforcing attitude. When I mentioned to a coworker that I had been on a PIP and transitioned out of it, he was amazed. He'd never heard of anyone being removed from one so he assumed that once you're on a PIP you'll eventually be fired.

I think most people put on PIPs think the same: I'm going to be fired anyway, so why bother doing anything about this?

That said, I am absolutely convinced that the reason for the PIP is that they were trying to get rid of a number of (expensive) senior engineers.

[Volundr]

I also think people have a tendency to be unrealistic (with themselves and/or others) about why they were fired. I certainly know that in terms of the employees I've let go, the version of events they've told people that got back to me were pretty far from what actually happened. Maybe some of those people who were fired after being on a PIP really were unjustly let go to cut costs, or maybe it's just more comfortable to tell people/themselves that. And since the manager/company probably isn't talking it's a narrative that generally doesn't get challenged.