My assumption generally is that PIP is a result of "HR engineering" - it's basically a legal way to bully someone out of the company with the worst case scenario being you maximize their productivity and burn them out right before they might've been fired anyway.
There's also longstanding evidence that Amazon uses PIP's just to recapture locked RSU shares after bad financial quarters. Basically, have a bad financial quarter, just tell managers they have to stack rank and fire a few more employees than usual.
You say this as though it’s some evil corporate trick. Although sometimes they are abused, these PIPs are often deserved.
I work in an organization where it is very difficult to fire marginal employees and while job security is great, the poor performers really drag down everyone else’s morale. PIPs if utilized properly can be a great way to rehabilitate these employees, even if they ultimately move on to other teams.
Just an anecdote, but when I was at amazon I saw more undeserved pips than deserved ones. Often I was left wondering why that person was in pip but not me. From my vantage point, they did almost as much, and as good work as I did. In the end, it was the quota that had to be fulfilled and they got unlucky.
> burn them out right before they might've been fired anyway
If you're offered the choice of PIP or severance, it's usually best to take the severance.
> after bad financial quarters
It's a typical way to lower staffing levels without an official layoff. Instead of letting bottom 5% go, make it the bottom 10%. Where "bottom" can have multiple meanings.
Sometimes PIP=Personnel Intoxication Plan as well, when employers want to force employees toward increasing productivity by taking a dive to draw a diagnose and recipes for attention disorder stimulants.
I was put on a PIP at Google in my first year. I worked my way out of it (it was mostly a perception-of-work thing, not an actual-work thing). And then for other reasons I transferred out about 6 months later. I think this helped a lot in getting that off my back. The new manager, new lead, and new team knew basically nothing about it so it was far easier to shake it off.
Another colleague was put on a PIP after being on the team for 2 years. They made a big effort to go around to all of the leads (including me) and ask for advice on getting out from under it. They did (but kind of via a technicality) and stayed on the team. It was obvious how they were passed over for project after project and ended up only doing maintenance work until eventually being laid off.
Yeah, if you get PIPed, at least leave the team, if not the company.
If you're in the position of being stuck with maintenance work at Google, does it even make sense to leave? I imagine the pay is so good that it'd be hard to justify going elsewhere.
If you're looking to coast like that then yeah, it's hard to leave it. This person actually got out from the PIP by transitioning to 80% (you work four days per week for 80% of the pay and equity). That's definitely not the direction they wanted to go. And it strongly limits your opportunities to advance. Nobody gets promoted unless they work on promo bait projects. Maintenance ain't gonna cut it.
You also can't coast until you hit a certain level (it used to be 5, I think it changed to 4).
Ultimately they were laid off, so was it worth it for them? I don't know, I didn't keep in touch. But maybe.
I wonder though. At a company like Google, you may well be paid more as a L5 than most CTOs make at most companies. There may be no way to "advance" your career by leaving if you're in this position. This may sound depressing but it seems like Google is essentially the peak of prestige and compensation and there is nowhere to go but down if you want to move on.
PIPs as constructive termination is an important realization, yes.
Of course, the more this is recognized (especially if it becomes recognized socially enough that the legal system recognizes it), the more companies will need something to replace PIPs as “constructive termination that we can get away with without consequence.”
What’s the reason PIPs are a problem exactly? Who loses?
Let’s say you actually are a bad fit, either due to effort or ability, you could try and work through it as a learning experience and leave when you have the opportunity.
If it’s not due to any fault of your own, it gives you time to job search.
The company basically gets an excuse to let you go at some point in the future.
I think as a manager/company, unless there are behavioral problems, it’s in your best interest to make the PIP describe what kind of performance you’d want out of the employee. Even if employees don’t interpret it that way, it’s better for the company to retain someone able to operate at the desired level than go through hiring again just to find someone who hopefully will. Also, IANAL but if literally no employee ever graduates out of a PIP at a company I feel like that would make them useless in the face of a wrongful dismissal suit:
Ofc, this probably doesn’t happen much in practice. But I think these aspects disincentivize converting PIPS into true formalities any time soon
> "why did you leave your previous role?" I would suggest you say, "it was a situation where I was unable to excel." Resist the temptation to go into details or to disparage your former manager or company.
Or just make some shit up no reason for you to start being honest in a situation where your future employer will likely start by lying to you about the state of things as well
I was paraphrasing. How I actually say it depends on the circumstances and the personality of the one interviewing me.
But you're right, you need to be careful of implying things you don't want to imply. And if you've worked there for more than a year or so, you have to be prepared for the natural followup question "What changed to make the fit no longer good?"
But the key thing is that you aren't being deceptive, you're just giving the most general answer possible. So the followup question is probably not a stumper.
For instance, when I interviewed where I currently work, I gave this response for why I left my prior job, and got the followup question. My response to that was the honest -- but still vague enough -- answer "the company had been acquired, and I found the new management style difficult to excel in."
No need to fall into us vs them rhetoric, you can just say the truth in a way that does not sound like you blame everyone but yourself and that will be good enough for most interviewers.
The truth is most people are not complete sociopath, if you say "After working N years at X I felt the projects were not interesting anymore and that impacted my motivation at work. I want to explore a different tech stack/area/industry". Sure you can interpret that as "this guy will leave my company if he gets bored", but most people will hear "I just wanted a change" and as long as N > 2 years you are likely fine.
Sure. My point is that there is a lot of pig-lipstick application when you get generously offered two minutes at the end of an interview to ask questions. Not because they are sociopaths, I think a lot of it comes out of a sense that they should not bad mouth their employer, or that they have to seduce candidates or they won't come.
> you can just say the truth in a way that does not sound like you blame everyone but yourself
People are generally bad at interviewing. You might get lucky and find someone who has the finesse to understand the situation you were in and how it's not generally relevant to your performance in their own context - in my opinion and based on a significant number of data points, I wouldn't risk it. I have heard interviewers in debriefs for developer roles telling that the candidate wasn't motivated because they weren't looking at the camera or because they didn't ask strong questions during the last of 4 interviews, or that they were lacking a sense of humour because they didn't laugh at their joke, or that they had a weak personality because they were anxious during the interview.
I've never been PIP'd, but if I were, I would absolutely leave the company.
If I were put there for good reason, then the fact that I'm performing poorly and wasn't able to correct before management felt the need to address it is a pretty much ironclad indication that I'm a poor fit there.
If I were put there for a bad reason -- well, that speaks for itself. I'm not wanted.
In either case, whether I quit or not, my days at the company are clearly numbered. Better to get out right away than to suffer the humiliation of remaining.
True. I am personally fortunate in that my career history and reputation makes me very employable regardless. Others who don't have that advantage may need to take that into account, though.
I totally agree. It's a major indicator that you're not on the same page with your manager, at the very least. The outcome is unlikely to be great, so use it as an opportunity to make your departure more on your own terms.
Also, I've met more than a few managers over the years that never use a PIP unless they've already given up on the employee. It's a checkbox at that point to make HR happy, there is going to be no possible redemption.
This is actually terrible advice, but I wouldn't expect a guy that earned millions a year to understand why, because it's not relevant to him: Quitting makes you unable to claim unemployment in most countries.
If you are put on a PIP, the right course of action is to:
1. Do the bare minimum to not be fired for job abandonment,
This sounds like horrible advice for anyone who wants to excel at their work.
From a management perspective, 1 and 2 are no good and will result in 3.
Programmers I know are pretty good and have multiple opportunities. If you suck and just want to hang on, then you could do this.
But if you’re good, then it’s best to avoid a PIP. Or if you get on one, figure out why and correct it. Or, easiest, just take one of the other offers and work somewhere where you’re in better sync with management.
Of course, you’d never want to quit without a new job lined up.
You're talking about FAANG PIPs, not what good managers would do that want to retain and develop good developers. PIPs it sounds like can't be recovered from realistically so it's time to move on. Maybe to a company that maybe even gives at least a little shit about you.
I think most of us agree that you should leave if put on a pip...but I think we should remember that quitting prematurely may not be the best financial move for many as you'll need to rely on savings and not qualify for unemployment. It's certainly in the company's best interest if you feel stressed and shamed enough to quit early and save them the hassle.
To me this makes no sense. Isn't the point of a performance improvement process to.... help someone improve? Nobody is perfect, and if your performance isn't in line with what your boss thinks it should be, isn't the appropriate remedy to explain what needs to change, and then see if you can change it?
Naturally, if you attempt the PIP and it doesn't work, then leaving makes sense. But leaving because you start one is illogical to me.
It's because the PIP is a formal (usually legally required) process that generally only starts once the business has already decided to fire you. It's very rare that things turn around afterwards.
He is completely correct. Weird that he would say it out loud.
Of course we have all heard of a coworker who was placed on a PIP and then survived the PIP and went on to do well. It happens, but the people who struggle and then fail, or who survive but struggle for years far outnumber them (and he has the data).
There is no guarantee of severance if you are fired for documented performance issues under an “at will” employment contract, which most full time positions in tech are.
I don’t expect sympathy—this is a therapeutic post—but as an engineering line manager, managing out low performance is the single most draining aspect of the job.
I agree that by the time a PiP comes around, it’s probably too late: Every advice has been to act fast, yet only psychopaths can ignore the emotional toll.
Dragging out low performance on the otherhand really affects the team badly, so it cannot be left alone.
So a human being will be discussing in one-on-ones on issues with performance and jotting unofficial notes bot visible to anyone to avoid an unnecessary stain on an employee. Once a PiP comes around it’s become formal.
After this is all done, I’m hoping to get myself PiP’d out of this job.
Maybe what someone else said in HN was right: I’m not cut out for managing.
Specifically one use case always bothers me. I don’t understand why someone who seems like a low performer who is clearly doing his best is a big deal. You’re all part of a corporation which prioritises profit. Loyalty and many other factors are far more important to maintain than simply a performance metric. Also how do you know it’s not just others forcing him to have the hardest issues to resolve issues or that his performance is not being hampered by problems elsewhere in the chain?
If I were ever to manage again performance metrics would be the least of my concerns when trying to deliver a product. A focus on removing a candidate I think is just a failure of a system. Either in the hiring or in the fixing. I disagree with your attitude but I admit you are more experienced in the matter and I may missing things.
> Specifically one use case always bothers me. I don’t understand why someone who seems like a low performer who is clearly doing his best is a big deal.
If the rest of the team constantly has to clean-up after the person or handhold, then the team becomes less effective.
A smart company will try to manage the person into the right role or demote someone, as long as they would be effective.
> Loyalty and many other factors are far more important to maintain than simply a performance metric.
Maybe in politics or if you’re in a politically charged environment.
Performance metrics are flawed, but poor engineering and lack of foresight has consequences that no amount of loyalty can make up for (see Boeing).
There’s a set of competence required and if the person can’t grow into that set then it’s a manager’s job to get them out.
49 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 93.0 ms ] threadThere's also longstanding evidence that Amazon uses PIP's just to recapture locked RSU shares after bad financial quarters. Basically, have a bad financial quarter, just tell managers they have to stack rank and fire a few more employees than usual.
I work in an organization where it is very difficult to fire marginal employees and while job security is great, the poor performers really drag down everyone else’s morale. PIPs if utilized properly can be a great way to rehabilitate these employees, even if they ultimately move on to other teams.
that is a big IF
Just an anecdote, but when I was at amazon I saw more undeserved pips than deserved ones. Often I was left wondering why that person was in pip but not me. From my vantage point, they did almost as much, and as good work as I did. In the end, it was the quota that had to be fulfilled and they got unlucky.
If you're offered the choice of PIP or severance, it's usually best to take the severance.
> after bad financial quarters
It's a typical way to lower staffing levels without an official layoff. Instead of letting bottom 5% go, make it the bottom 10%. Where "bottom" can have multiple meanings.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/us/workers-seeking-produc...
Another colleague was put on a PIP after being on the team for 2 years. They made a big effort to go around to all of the leads (including me) and ask for advice on getting out from under it. They did (but kind of via a technicality) and stayed on the team. It was obvious how they were passed over for project after project and ended up only doing maintenance work until eventually being laid off.
Yeah, if you get PIPed, at least leave the team, if not the company.
You also can't coast until you hit a certain level (it used to be 5, I think it changed to 4).
Ultimately they were laid off, so was it worth it for them? I don't know, I didn't keep in touch. But maybe.
Of course, the more this is recognized (especially if it becomes recognized socially enough that the legal system recognizes it), the more companies will need something to replace PIPs as “constructive termination that we can get away with without consequence.”
Let’s say you actually are a bad fit, either due to effort or ability, you could try and work through it as a learning experience and leave when you have the opportunity.
If it’s not due to any fault of your own, it gives you time to job search.
The company basically gets an excuse to let you go at some point in the future.
Ofc, this probably doesn’t happen much in practice. But I think these aspects disincentivize converting PIPS into true formalities any time soon
Or just make some shit up no reason for you to start being honest in a situation where your future employer will likely start by lying to you about the state of things as well
But you're right, you need to be careful of implying things you don't want to imply. And if you've worked there for more than a year or so, you have to be prepared for the natural followup question "What changed to make the fit no longer good?"
But the key thing is that you aren't being deceptive, you're just giving the most general answer possible. So the followup question is probably not a stumper.
For instance, when I interviewed where I currently work, I gave this response for why I left my prior job, and got the followup question. My response to that was the honest -- but still vague enough -- answer "the company had been acquired, and I found the new management style difficult to excel in."
The truth is most people are not complete sociopath, if you say "After working N years at X I felt the projects were not interesting anymore and that impacted my motivation at work. I want to explore a different tech stack/area/industry". Sure you can interpret that as "this guy will leave my company if he gets bored", but most people will hear "I just wanted a change" and as long as N > 2 years you are likely fine.
Sure. My point is that there is a lot of pig-lipstick application when you get generously offered two minutes at the end of an interview to ask questions. Not because they are sociopaths, I think a lot of it comes out of a sense that they should not bad mouth their employer, or that they have to seduce candidates or they won't come.
> you can just say the truth in a way that does not sound like you blame everyone but yourself
People are generally bad at interviewing. You might get lucky and find someone who has the finesse to understand the situation you were in and how it's not generally relevant to your performance in their own context - in my opinion and based on a significant number of data points, I wouldn't risk it. I have heard interviewers in debriefs for developer roles telling that the candidate wasn't motivated because they weren't looking at the camera or because they didn't ask strong questions during the last of 4 interviews, or that they were lacking a sense of humour because they didn't laugh at their joke, or that they had a weak personality because they were anxious during the interview.
If I were put there for good reason, then the fact that I'm performing poorly and wasn't able to correct before management felt the need to address it is a pretty much ironclad indication that I'm a poor fit there.
If I were put there for a bad reason -- well, that speaks for itself. I'm not wanted.
In either case, whether I quit or not, my days at the company are clearly numbered. Better to get out right away than to suffer the humiliation of remaining.
Also, I've met more than a few managers over the years that never use a PIP unless they've already given up on the employee. It's a checkbox at that point to make HR happy, there is going to be no possible redemption.
If you are put on a PIP, the right course of action is to:
1. Do the bare minimum to not be fired for job abandonment,
2. Apply to new jobs,
3. Let them fire you at the end.
From a management perspective, 1 and 2 are no good and will result in 3.
Programmers I know are pretty good and have multiple opportunities. If you suck and just want to hang on, then you could do this.
But if you’re good, then it’s best to avoid a PIP. Or if you get on one, figure out why and correct it. Or, easiest, just take one of the other offers and work somewhere where you’re in better sync with management.
Of course, you’d never want to quit without a new job lined up.
Using the time to look for a new job is 100% the correct action
Naturally, if you attempt the PIP and it doesn't work, then leaving makes sense. But leaving because you start one is illogical to me.
Of course we have all heard of a coworker who was placed on a PIP and then survived the PIP and went on to do well. It happens, but the people who struggle and then fail, or who survive but struggle for years far outnumber them (and he has the data).
The work isn't fulfilling or something, so moving on is a good idea. This can be a positive signal for change
Staying is also signing up for another hedonic treadmill
No wonder engineering at most large companies has become shitty. Nobody cares any more than just doing enough to keep their jobs.
Such a big management fail.
I agree that by the time a PiP comes around, it’s probably too late: Every advice has been to act fast, yet only psychopaths can ignore the emotional toll.
Dragging out low performance on the otherhand really affects the team badly, so it cannot be left alone.
So a human being will be discussing in one-on-ones on issues with performance and jotting unofficial notes bot visible to anyone to avoid an unnecessary stain on an employee. Once a PiP comes around it’s become formal.
After this is all done, I’m hoping to get myself PiP’d out of this job.
Maybe what someone else said in HN was right: I’m not cut out for managing.
If I were ever to manage again performance metrics would be the least of my concerns when trying to deliver a product. A focus on removing a candidate I think is just a failure of a system. Either in the hiring or in the fixing. I disagree with your attitude but I admit you are more experienced in the matter and I may missing things.
If the rest of the team constantly has to clean-up after the person or handhold, then the team becomes less effective.
A smart company will try to manage the person into the right role or demote someone, as long as they would be effective.
> Loyalty and many other factors are far more important to maintain than simply a performance metric.
Maybe in politics or if you’re in a politically charged environment.
Performance metrics are flawed, but poor engineering and lack of foresight has consequences that no amount of loyalty can make up for (see Boeing).
There’s a set of competence required and if the person can’t grow into that set then it’s a manager’s job to get them out.