Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A PIP means we don't like you and you have a month or so to find another job or you're fired.
Obviously start aggressively job searching, but if you can't find a job before the time limit, let them fire you. Don't quit because you won't get unemployment.
Really, do you want to work somewhere where you aren't wanted? Getting fired from that kind of job is a blessing in disguise.
I'd rather be a mature professional and able to work with anyone who is not toxic and work on a team with skilled professionals rather than a company run like a frat house.
Your question provided a false dichotomy. Either work with people you are buddy buddy with and want to hang out with or people you hate that steal you lunches and insult you etc. How just working with people period whether they are people you want to hang out with or people you just interact with on a professional level. As long as they are not terribly toxic you should be able to work with anyone as a professional.
Everyone in the world is not either a friend you want to watch the NFL game with or an enemy you want to get into a fist fight with. There is a small portion of the population one would want to be friends with, a large portion that are neutral, and another small portion one could not deal with at all due to them being toxic.
... A layoff means they are reducing the workforce and getting rid of that position...
I would agree with you but companies often make the case that a position was "eliminated" if 95% of the duties were transferred to a new or existing employee and the other 5% were dispensed with or transferred to yet another employee. I haven't seen anyone put on a PIP in years and in that case it was to dispense with 5 older highly compensated managers who fell afoul of new MD. Companies don't have to bother with PIPs is a depressed labor market; they bundle up all their problem children in a RIF.
As I mentioned, you can fire employees but it costs the company more money and opens them up to risks. A layoff means they are reducing the workforce and getting rid of that position. What I'm talking about with the PIP is it's being used to replace that specific employee and keep the head count of their position so it can be filled with someone else cheaper.
Interesting book, thanks for the link.
How is the second one different than the first?
How does firing an employee cost more money and open them up to risks than if you used a PIP to replace an employee?
You're making things up and passing it off as fact based on what you heard from friends, who never think their performance was lacking.
I have news for you - if I want to get rid of a person I DO NOT BOTHER WITH A PIP!!!!! I document the issues, how I addressed them, gave verbal and written warnings and then terminate the person. I wouldn't waste my time going through a process as lengthy as a PIP.
What level of management are you in, how long have you been there, and what type of training have you received in your role as a manager?
HR is not meant to be anyone's friend nor enemy(and they aren't either). They're meant to act as a neural and unbiased internal 3rd party..
This might be true in theory, but often it is not true in fact. I had an issue that I took to HR, and they were not interested in hearing my side of things. They said I could write something to go in my personnel file, but the HR guy made it abundantly clear he was there to represent the company.
First, thanks to the OP for the informative and useful post and reasonable followups. I learned a few things reading this thread, mostly that I want to find a desert island soon. :^)
When I worked as a recruiter, I had the top HR person call me up while I was conducting a hiring session and tell me they wanted a certain person to be shown as the best candidate on my paperwork. He was a relation of a current employee. The recruiting forms were required to be filled in with pencil only.
A manager at that same company told me flat out that he wouldn't hire a female candidate for a certain position, just after we'd interviewed one who surpassed every requirement several times over. Other managers passed over perfectly competent choices, a couple of those came to subsequent sessions just to tell me how they were hired by other companies, because i had taken time to counsel them after the session about what positions they were best suited to apply for. Stupidly, I thought that's what an HR person should do, help put the best person in the ideal position for all. I was only a contractor, so didn't know the rules of engagement.
There are often layers of complexity in these matters, and I think some of the strife between posters here reflects that. Depends on which side you've been on and who was on the other side. In every system, some people get what they deserve and some don't.
I'd rather be a mature professional and able to work with anyone who is not toxic and work on a team with skilled professionals rather than a company run like a frat house.
And who in your opinion is toxic? Is it people that like to have fun, enjoy sports, can have a normal conversation, and still get their work done?
You seem to always say that people that enjoy themselves at work are bad workers. That is not true. It is the people that no one can stand to be around that are bad workers, but they think they are great employees.
Few jobs require the best. Any person that can do the job and can get along with others is all most companies need.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.