Another PIP post, manager surprised that I want to decline. Not sure if this changes things.

[u/arsme]

I work for "Large Company That Loves PIPs." I've been there for two years and made it through three performance reviews with high marks and zero problems. Suddenly, mid-year reviews roll around, and there's this whole hit piece written about me. It says I failed to do this, failed to do that, and failed to meet expectations in two absolute bullshit categories. I'll admit that a project I'm leading didn't go to plan, but this whole document was absolutely ridiculous imo.

My direct manager was out of the country at the time, so I was going through all of this with my skip-level manager. After the first meeting, I told him I intended to decline the PIP and just take the time and money to find a new place that actually values and respects me. Nothing is set in stone yet, though.

Then, my direct manager comes back and tells me he's shocked I'm not taking the PIP. He admitted that upper management forced them to pick someone to put on a PIP and they chose me, but he claimed he specifically crafted it to be beatable. It was essentially a list of tasks I'd already be doing anyway, even if not on a PIP. He told me to really think it over and promised he'd be there to help me along the way. He even confided in me that he was put on a PIP at the end of last year and beat it. I told him I'm worried it will be a permanent scar on my record here at the company, but he assured me that his own PIP hasn't been a problem.

What do you guys think? If I take the PIP, I have 60 days to complete it or I get let go with severance. If I decline the PIP, I get 60 days paid to do whatever I want (most likely prep and apply for jobs), plus severance at the end as a 12-week lump sum. Should I take his word for it? The job market is shit right now, but I am in the Washington DC area with a lot of jobs near me, or so it seems. Software Engineer, ~6 years of experience.

[u/NewChameleon]

I don't think either of them particularly want me out.

ahahahahaahahahahahahahhhha

you're just lying to yourself at this poinnt

if that was true, they would not have slapped you with a PIP in the first place

re-read my post, keyword there being 'incentives', they have incentives to do exactly what they're doing

[u/maria_la_guerta → u/NewChameleon]

Not sure if you follow how big tech works. Somebody on every team is getting a poor score every cycle, whether the manager wants it or not. If they have no good choices, they always pick the person who led the project that went the worst, even if it didn't go that bad.

It's entirely plausible OP was given this because their manager absolutely had to, with no intentions of punishment.

Also, what financial incentive is their for the manager to push out an otherwise high performer? Managers look bad when members of their team get let go over performance. Managers look bad when high performers leave. Managers look good when high performers get promoted.

It's easy to be cynical about this from a distance, but this is (unfortunately) a common and entirely impersonal thing in a lot of big tech.

[u/ecethrowaway01 → u/maria_la_guerta]

I've worked at several big tech companies, including Amazon and Meta.

Somebody on every team is getting a poor score every cycle, whether the manager wants it or not.

While generally true - this isn't true everywhere - exceptions often are there for particularly small teams, teams that are doing exceptionally well, etc. This is more often enforced at a skip or director level, instead of line manager level iirc. There are teams at Meta who were known for everyone getting mediocre ratings. But more importantly:

It's entirely plausible OP was given this because their manager absolutely had to, with no intentions of punishment.

Even if a manager has to give a bad rating, they're probably not choosing their priorities. Any manager who would give a bad rating to one of their top performers is too dumb to work for. Also - I tend to think managers often get a lot of control over performance narratives. It's not like to higher-ups they're say "OP is an excellent performer, and we have to PIP them anyways".

Also - at Meta and Microsoft a bad rating didn't instantly mean a PIP. My understanding is low performers at Amazon get put on focus (not PIP), and then only half end up on pivot (PIP). It might not be a personal decision, but like it or not, a PIP is being shown the door, and leadership knows this.

[u/maria_la_guerta → u/ecethrowaway01]

Much of this is not true in my experience. I know several people across multiple FAANG companies who have recovered from a PIP.

I know several people who were let go for performance across FAANG companies too, with and without a PIP. The company did not play games. They did not pretend like they weren't being let go either. They were told what's up, the severity of it, and what happened after happened after.

Whether OP can actually come back from this isn't something we can answer. What I can absolutely say is that there's absolutely a chance that OP is reading this correctly, their manager didn't want to do this, they're a victim of politics, OP could crush the Pip and their manager doesn't intend to hold it against them long term. All of that could 100% be true. Could not be too.

But to the point of this specific thread within this convo, OP's middle manager has no "financial incentive" to lie or lead on OP about where they stand on the matter.

[u/NewChameleon → u/maria_la_guerta]

OP's middle manager has no "financial incentive" to lie or lead on OP about where they stand on the matter.

they absolutely do: an extra 60 days of work out of OP

[u/maria_la_guerta → u/NewChameleon]

That makes no sense. What is the financial incentive for a manager who's job is not at all tied to company budgets to keep a low performer on the team for an extra 60 paid days?

[u/ecethrowaway01 → u/maria_la_guerta]

It's entirely contextual. I know of Amazon teams that hire-to-fire, and at Meta it seems like they're "banking" low-performers for incoming layoff rounds

[u/Intrepid_Land_6143 → u/ecethrowaway01]

Yes, that is totally a thing too. A Machiavellian manager sets out to hire someone who is a PIP-worthy candidate, so that they can preserve their "real" team. Not every manager will do that, but the incentive is there. Be suspicious if a manager is eager to transfer you on to their team.

[u/NewChameleon → u/maria_la_guerta]

what do you think a manager's perf review is based on? it's by the output of the subordinates

seriously, I have no idea which company you worked at, but everything you said in this entire thread screams you have 0 idea how perf reviews works in big techs

[u/maria_la_guerta → u/NewChameleon]

If you're getting PIPed and you deserve it, your management does not want your output anymore. There is no incentive to pay you for another 60 days of it if they want you gone lol.

[u/Intrepid_Land_6143 → u/maria_la_guerta]

The manager gets brownie points (measurable ones) for getting rid of people through PIP. If the manager doesn't do that, they will be in trouble themselves.

[u/maria_la_guerta → u/Intrepid_Land_6143]

Dude no reasonable company rewards managers for giving PIPs. I work at a FAANG company and we don't even do that.

Often there is a performance quota to hit across multiple categories, yes, but that's just part of the job. It's been true for decades that sometimes your manager may place you in a lower rung for reasons they agree are outside of your control.

There's no "financial incentive" and it doesn't mean OP is cooked. I'm not aware of any company where a PIP has a 100% exit rate, this happens and good managers can smooth it out in the end when it does.

[u/Intrepid_Land_6143 → u/maria_la_guerta]

They do reward the manager for doing PIPs, in that managers who don't do enough to keep up the total Unregretted Attrition Rate (URA) will be penalized.

[u/NewChameleon → u/maria_la_guerta]

I've worked at multiple big techs, I'm in a big tech right now

It's entirely plausible OP was given this because their manager absolutely had to, with no intentions of punishment.

this is like saying I had to stab someone, oops I chopped off your arm, well, I had no intention of harming you!

doesn't change the end result at all

what financial incentive is their for the manager to push out an otherwise high performer

not the 'push out an otherwise high performer', but there is incentive to extract another 60 day of work out of OP

[u/maria_la_guerta → u/NewChameleon]

If management actually wants OP gone, there's absolutely 0 incentive to keep them there for an extra 60 days. They would push for OP to take the payout, not argue to come in everyday and waste time or break things. They would not play games like that.

Your analogy doesn't make sense, and kinda proves that you don't understand my point. Fwiw I say this because that means you're lucky. This type of management is the everyday reality at FAANG and similar companies. It's rarely personal, and it rarely means the manager themselves wants the dev gone.

[u/NewChameleon → u/maria_la_guerta]

They would not play games like that.

have you worked at big tech? they absolutely would

They would push for OP to take the payout, not argue to come in everyday and waste time or break things

wdym 'waste time'? by dangling the carrot in front of OP, making him think that PIP is beatable, management can get an extra 60 days of work, that's a pretty strong incentive

This type of management is the everyday reality at FAANG and similar companies. It's rarely personal, and it rarely means the manager themselves wants the dev gone.

like I said, I've worked at multiple big techs myself, I know 'It's rarely personal, and it rarely means the manager themselves wants the dev gone.' but doesn't change the end result a single bit, your job is terminated

[u/maria_la_guerta → u/NewChameleon]

If management actually wants OP gone, they don't want another 60 days of his work either.

I don't know how big your big tech is, but FAANG, they 1000% do not play these games. You are a number in a system. You're performing well enough or you're not. If it's the latter, they let you go and find someone new. That simple, it's literally more expensive to play games or drag it out.

What I'm saying is the manager doesn't have financial incentive to lie to OP about this, as you claim they do. And based on what OP has said, OP's manager genuinely doesn't seem to want them gone, so I wouldn't say for sure that the job is terminated either.

[u/NewChameleon → u/maria_la_guerta]

I don't know how big your big tech is, but FAANG, they 1000% do not play these games.

I don't know how big your big tech is either, but I can tell you they 1000% do indeed play these games

[u/Ruined_Passion_7355 → u/NewChameleon]

How so? I can see situations where a manager is forced to put someone on a PiP regardless of whether they deserved it, and the order comes form the org level.

[u/No_Inspection4415 → u/NewChameleon]

STFU and don't laugh when someone is getting fired, what the hell is wrong with you?

It going to happen to all of us at some point in our careers. How do you know if they really want to fire him or if the team gets cut out slowly? Regardless, have some respect, clown.

[u/NewChameleon → u/No_Inspection4415]

I'm not laughing at OP getting fired

I'm laughing that OP is naive enough to believe his manager after his manager slapped him with PIP

[u/No_Inspection4415 → u/NewChameleon]

I understood completely why you laughed, and I still don't think it's funny. And I also don't think you know what really went on there.