Agree with what you wrote, but there is one reason a formal PIP sometimes succeed where pre-PIP efforts failed. For some employees it is difficult to understand how bad the situation is until it is put formally in front of them. It does not matter how clearly it is expresed beforehand, they would still interpret the messages optimistically.
A formal process may help (and helps), but it is very challenging, as you wrote. The critical ingredient is very high level of trust between the employee and the manager.
It is critical to develop a high trust relationship between manager and direct report—if that trust is there, it will help minimize lack of situational awareness or lack of clarity about performance expectations.
good general insight, but does not vibe with my experience at Amazon because I successfully managed my first report out of PIP. The situation differed because I was not the one to put him there: his previous manager did. I agreed to take him on, and then was told the next day I needed to put him in PIP :-) Why did it work? His 'attitude issues' had nothing to do with the intrinsic quality of his work or fit with the company (he still works at Amazon after years) but with how he came across to many colleagues, hindering collaboration. Together we worked on Earn Trust and Leaders are Right, A Lot - and achieved these goals.
That is an unusual situation! What happened to the manager (left or got fired themself) and what were the 'attitude issues' (negativity, ego)? Some companies are more lenient towards 'hard to work with talent' as long as they produce results.
Finding your Ikigai is a life long journey (much harder said then done). Your post reminded me of Ethan and Dave's talk, specifically this point:
>> What is subtlety listed in the LP “Have Backbone; Disagree and Commit” is “Have Backbone; Disagree and Commit…or please resign.” Put your badge on the table if you cannot commit to this. Jeff Bezos hated social cohesion and wanted you to fight tooth and nail (disagree) but ultimately if a leader did make a decision you did not agree with, also fight tooth and nail to make it happen. For example, every year Amazon has a list of “unregretted attrition” where managers stack rank their team, as the manager you can provide all the data and arguments why everyone on your team is high performance and must not get fired (disagree), but when your manager says “I understand, but I need to know the weakest person on your team, so I need the list” you then get on board (commit).
The lion's share of PIPs are designed to protect the company when justifying removing an employee. Over the years I've seen time and time again where a PIP was nothing more than a veiled way of covering for a failure of managing an employee effectively.
PIP is (understandably) always discussed with either hushed tones or angry cries, often leaving both the report and manager feeling like a failure. I appreciate how kindly this post breaks down the psychological steps to putting someone on a PIP and the highly stacked hurdles someone faces once they are on the plan. While there's always exceptions, I agree that the best move out of PIP is essentially "learn and leave".
I've followed Level Up for a while and as always, appreciate your advice that is kind, insightful, but also candid. There's no point in telling PIPed employees to "grind harder and overcome", especially at an emotional low point when they're grasping at anything that might make them feel better. Very timely article for the tech world too.
Excellent point in "There's no point in telling PIPed employees to "grind harder and overcome", especially at an emotional low point when they're grasping at anything that might make them feel better." — I've seen a few managers use this 'tactic' as a way to feel better about themselves but in reality they are just hurting the employee and the outcome remains, the employee leaving or being fire'd (just delayed a month or so).
Agree with what you wrote, but there is one reason a formal PIP sometimes succeed where pre-PIP efforts failed. For some employees it is difficult to understand how bad the situation is until it is put formally in front of them. It does not matter how clearly it is expresed beforehand, they would still interpret the messages optimistically.
A formal process may help (and helps), but it is very challenging, as you wrote. The critical ingredient is very high level of trust between the employee and the manager.
It is critical to develop a high trust relationship between manager and direct report—if that trust is there, it will help minimize lack of situational awareness or lack of clarity about performance expectations.
good general insight, but does not vibe with my experience at Amazon because I successfully managed my first report out of PIP. The situation differed because I was not the one to put him there: his previous manager did. I agreed to take him on, and then was told the next day I needed to put him in PIP :-) Why did it work? His 'attitude issues' had nothing to do with the intrinsic quality of his work or fit with the company (he still works at Amazon after years) but with how he came across to many colleagues, hindering collaboration. Together we worked on Earn Trust and Leaders are Right, A Lot - and achieved these goals.
That is an unusual situation! What happened to the manager (left or got fired themself) and what were the 'attitude issues' (negativity, ego)? Some companies are more lenient towards 'hard to work with talent' as long as they produce results.
indeed unusual. We both stayed for another year. The manager (me) ultimately resigned, as you can read about in my Substack https://amazondays.substack.com/p/day-3-culture-think-not
Finding your Ikigai is a life long journey (much harder said then done). Your post reminded me of Ethan and Dave's talk, specifically this point:
>> What is subtlety listed in the LP “Have Backbone; Disagree and Commit” is “Have Backbone; Disagree and Commit…or please resign.” Put your badge on the table if you cannot commit to this. Jeff Bezos hated social cohesion and wanted you to fight tooth and nail (disagree) but ultimately if a leader did make a decision you did not agree with, also fight tooth and nail to make it happen. For example, every year Amazon has a list of “unregretted attrition” where managers stack rank their team, as the manager you can provide all the data and arguments why everyone on your team is high performance and must not get fired (disagree), but when your manager says “I understand, but I need to know the weakest person on your team, so I need the list” you then get on board (commit).
https://levelupwithethanevans.substack.com/p/dissecting-amazon-leadership-principles
The lion's share of PIPs are designed to protect the company when justifying removing an employee. Over the years I've seen time and time again where a PIP was nothing more than a veiled way of covering for a failure of managing an employee effectively.
An SVP of a Fortune 500 once told me: "PIPs serve one purpose...protect the company. Anyone who thinks otherwise is blinded."
PIP is (understandably) always discussed with either hushed tones or angry cries, often leaving both the report and manager feeling like a failure. I appreciate how kindly this post breaks down the psychological steps to putting someone on a PIP and the highly stacked hurdles someone faces once they are on the plan. While there's always exceptions, I agree that the best move out of PIP is essentially "learn and leave".
I've followed Level Up for a while and as always, appreciate your advice that is kind, insightful, but also candid. There's no point in telling PIPed employees to "grind harder and overcome", especially at an emotional low point when they're grasping at anything that might make them feel better. Very timely article for the tech world too.
Excellent point in "There's no point in telling PIPed employees to "grind harder and overcome", especially at an emotional low point when they're grasping at anything that might make them feel better." — I've seen a few managers use this 'tactic' as a way to feel better about themselves but in reality they are just hurting the employee and the outcome remains, the employee leaving or being fire'd (just delayed a month or so).
TY for the comment HJ!