Comment by 1ef211383f1e92e | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1ef211383f1e92e | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

1ef211383f1e92e

You should try to consider it from the company's perspective as well-- hiring an engineer is very expensive, takes a long time, and any new engineer has takes time before they can start to fully contribute to a codebase.

If you're a manager in a situation where an employee has a problem and aren't meeting the job requirements, you'd probably much rather that they fix the problem and contribute to the team than fire them.

That doesn't mean that all of these plans are done in good faith, or that some managers aren't terrible. And for an employee on a PIP, they should think hard about leaving the company (or at least the team); it'll be better for their career.

But I don't think one can say that it's nothing more than a legal way to fire someone (especially since you can fire someone in most states in the US without cause, and spurious allegations of racial or other discrimination would need documentation that would be hard to produce if it didn't actually happen).

Whilst I think you are right, being put on a PiP should still be seen as a big warning. Especially since there are many ways to help someone improve in performance. There is little need for formalization in a benign pip. The main reason a pip is formalized is to prepare for firing.

I don't think being put on a pip means firing is certain and imminent. I do think being put on a pip means firing is on the table and a serious threat. In that sense the analogy of 'putting a bullet in the chamber' is accurate if maybe a bit strong.

Pip is to create document trail (so when they get sued they can show evidence ) and to force people into submission and resignation. So this way they can handle things quietly and dirty things kept undercover.

> that they fix the problem and contribute to the team than fire them.

> And for an employee on a PIP, they should think hard about leaving the company (or at least the team); it'll be better for their career.

Considering both of these statements, a PIP is never the right answer if your objective is legitimate performance improvement.

Even if you're an unexperienced (or outright stupid) manager that doesn't understand this and wants to use a PIP as a legitimate performance improvement tool, the target employee is never going to be on good terms with you or your company and it's very unlikely you'll actually get the desired results. If you do, it's only because the employee has literally no choice but that loyalty will be out the window as soon as he is in a better position to make a move.

Companies don't treat engineers as expensive to hire or difficult to hire in any other context (beyond complaining about it)), so I am extremely skeptical that they do here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com