[sunshowers]

The alternative is to very seriously ask if the primary reason for underperformance lies with management rather than the individual. We are a social species and a large part of our behavior is are determined by our social environment. The PIP process does not incorporate this very basic fact about us.

[therealdrag0]

Any serious organization will take that into account for the managers own performance. Their job is people management, and so losing an employee is potentially a strike against them and they need to be able to justify the firing was not their own failure but the employees inability to perform, which is part of the process. You can also get some signal about this on how other employees are performing, if every employee’s under performing then obviously it’s a cultural management organization issue, but no organization can be all things to all people often there will just be bad fits and people need to be able to move on.

[sunshowers]

Ah, well, I guess in that case most organizations are quite unserious.

[camgunz]

I would put the number at ~90% [0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law

[sibeliuss]

I have seen both sides of this, but most often its legitimately performance related. As in, IC pushes no code, calls in all the time, is generally unreliable, etc etc. But the manager side is almost worse, because the bad manager multiplier effect extends to each of their reports. And if reports aren't sure about expectations, or communication is subpar, its easy to feel lost.