@aredridel@kolektiva.social2025-07-29 13:39:34
I want to push back on the idea in the world of tech work that a PIP (performance improvement plan) is about getting rid of someone, that they're not intended to be survivable.
This is completely false. (I'm sure there's instances of it, of course, but the mode and vast majority are, in fact about performance improvement. Sometimes they're shadow layoffs, but that is cruel callous behavior that not everyone will exhibit.)
Now _most people do not survive the PIP process_. This is to be expected: if someone is in fact not performing, and more gentle remedies haven't worked, it's not looking good.
But here's where I get a bit spicy: most performance problems are constitutional problems with management and management style, not individual performance problems. However, since managers are as a class 'in power' somewhat, the individual contributor takes the fall for this structurally.
The intent of a PIP is not to get rid of people. It's to right performance.
However, as a system, PIPs do largely get rid of people who are constitutionally misaligned with management. Even when it's a management problem (and it usually is)
