> Usually that means something like getting a PIP and six weeks to improve performance. Is that such an unreasonable ask?
Isn't this what parent took issue with? If you can't fire the underperformers, where's the incentive to get shit done?
Isn't this what parent took issue with? If you can't fire the underperformers, where's the incentive to get shit done?
The assumption with you guys is always three parts:
1. That the company actors know what good performance is, therefor they can determine underperformance
2. That underperformance is meaningful in the context (taking care of a sick kid for a month is underperformance, but not meaningful when the kid is no longer sick)
3. That the company actors are being truthful about the reason