[zug_zug]

> You don't PIP a lower performing staff unless they're completely useless or toxic

Maybe this is part of the problem -- that it's called one thing (a plan to improve performance) but is used as another (legalese once you've already given up hope).

But I've never quite understood why. I imagine if I was a manager people would know if they are doing 20% as much as the best team member and would either be off the team or have shaped up within 6 months. That period where you genuinely are making sure that somebody understands you think they aren't doing well and clarify expectations seems valuable and ideally would happen long before it's too late.

[InDubioProRubio]

The problem is what pip percentages say about management. Either HR hires and management approves 20 % duds - or your company is a rockstar shredder machine. Neither is a pleasant truth.

[chrisdhoover]

I think .20 is an underestimate. Under performers are likely in the .25 to .35 percent range. It is hard to find the right people and so there is an acceptance of good enough. The PIPs start with the most egregious or if cash flow is tight. An owner I worked for called it trimming the dead wood. From the business side it is best to get rid of some people. Its best for the remaining people too.

[scruple]

> Its best for the remaining people too.

It sure doesn't feel that way to me, as someone who has seen lower-performing (I'd hesitate to label them under-performing, these people simply never should've been hired into the role they were put into in the first place, but those are anecdotes for another time) be PIPed and ultimately let go, because all it means is my own workload is going to go from fucked to even-more-fucked.

[therealdrag0]

That’s a bad management issue. Your workloads shouldn’t be drastically impacted by how many coworkers you have. If you lose a coworkers it’s your managers job to rebalance the roadmap or negotiate with other other managers and their manager to get a up to speed backfill.

[icedchai]

I agree. The low performers drag down the rest of the team. Generally, they're not only slow, but the quality of work is poor, requiring constant attention from other team members. Often, the individuals are totally unreliable. They don't respond to messages, won't do PR reviews in a timely manner, resulting in cascading frustrations. You can't give them anything critical or it becomes a blocker...

[riku_iki]

> but is used as another (legalese once you've already given up hope).

because "completely useless or toxic"(from prev comment) is manager's subjective assessment, and company wants to have stronger metric for firing people.

[chrisdhoover]

Most of life is subjective. Objectivity is very difficult. You are dealing with people who are mostly wacky. I suppose a weighted decision calculation could be used. How do you measure grumpy gus, chatty cathy, or mean marvin? How do handle the unsober?

[riku_iki]

You can set robust PIP structure:

* clear deliveries which are evaluated by not manager

* collect peers feedback/ratings not visible to manager

This structure can give much stronger metric compared to personal manager feedback.