[JoshTriplett]

> If you're the sort of person that cannot decode what a "Performance Improvement Plan" is then you're going to be eaten by the industry alive.

On the one hand, yes, this is true. On the other hand, it shouldn't take decoding doublespeak to know that a "performance improvement plan" has nothing to do with improving performance, and is just a box-checking CYA exercise to make a paper trail for firing someone.

And the way in which people learn this obnoxious bit of doublespeak is by having plenty of readily findable sources telling them "this is a box-checking exercise for firing you, do not believe any HR information claiming otherwise".

[ivmaykov]

I know of at least one instance in which an employee at a $BigTechCompany was put on a PIP, successfully completed the PIP, and was fired the following week anyway. Box-checking exercise indeed.

[jjmarr]

The point of a PIP is to reduce legal liability for the company. It shows that someone was fired for not meeting the requirements of their role, and not for race/gender/sexuality/whistleblowing/etc. When you get sued later, I believe the idea is the company can point to the PIP and say "we documented the real reasons for the firing and gave the employee the chance to address them".

If someone successfully completed a PIP and gets fired, the company has effectively put in writing that the employee was fired for other reasons. I wonder if that would look worse in a lawsuit than not having a PIP at all.