[cqqxo4zV46cp]

It depends. Sometimes people just need a kick in the ass. Sometimes they have a blind spot that needs to be pointed out. People should be given a chance to improve. In terms of action required, there’s often very little difference between helping an under-achiever hit the mark, and helping an adequate performer grow. It’s just a question of expectations. I argue that a failure to ever do the former makes one a bad manager.

That’s not to say that they should be given infinite leeway, but nobody here has made that argument, so…

Sometimes a PIP is just a PIP. I’m sick to death of the increasingly clickbaity articles that cause employees to preemptively put their shields up as a result of painting every workplace as being a very particular sort of…terrible corporate America.

[ugh123]

>That’s not to say that they should be given infinite leeway, but nobody here has made that argument, so…

I interpreted this from OP: >Both failed… I would have much preferred keeping them to finding and training someone new

as giving infinite leeway, like "i'd rather not go through the hiring process and just 'deal with it'".

[apple4ever]

Totally agree. I've had to put people on PIPs and also had to decide instead of a PIP just cut them. It's never fun, but these people were long time underperformers. I'm sure in some places they do PIPs as a formality, but I never seen that and I would never do that.

[mgarfias]

Sometimes the employee comes down with a chronic medical problem that affects performance.