How many people placed on PIPs were truly underperforming? From what I have seen, the number is close to zero.
12 replies (most recent on top)
Announcing PIP target % prior to start of the assessment indicates zero relationship to how many people need improvement and complete relationship to how many people Darren wants to exit.
Thank you @ah, you sound like perfect management material. Lots of words, little substance, shade thrown on your colleagues, and you’ve presented no solid position on the issue. Bravo.
@13r, you’re just an unfortunate, garden variety a-hole. No one deserves any of this layoff disguised as performance improvement bs.
@OP The majority of people who are PIP’ed deserve it. Stop with all this “grading on a curve” or “we’re forced to put excellant workers in NSI”.
Before Covid, the target was up to 3% maximum on PIP. After Covid and with the increase of BTC, it became a layoff tool, and the percentage adjusted... it varies each year now, which should be suspicious in and of itself, and is usually between 8% to 12% 'minimum'. I agree there are some low performers, but not 10% of the corporation every year ..
Not all are deserving of PIP, but I have to admit, we do make mistakes in hiring so some really aren’t performing. And some were deadwood (entitled, unmotivated and just cruising along)
The unpublished system at EM:
The HC10 over 50 expert that makes corrections to the work of the low cost 3rd world id--t gets ranked lower than the 3rd world id--t and eventually PIPd.
Tracking of corrective actions required by BTC low standard work products is forbidden.
Eventually when too few HC10 correctors remaining, actual uncorrected BTC work will get through and become a root cause to an Exxon Valdez level event.
It is immoral how they treat their people
I hope you understand that this constant culling of PEOPLE, with a life and family is completely not normal. Fcuk the metrics, curves, the "relative" performance, etc. Anyone who shows up and does their job should not feel or be at risk of losing their livelihood, period. I've since moved on from XOM, and no, despite the gas lighting, it is not like that everywhere. Yes, people get fired at other places too and get put on PIPs.. but in the real world, that is reserved for very obvious and egregious behaviors.
Targeted for political or personal reasons by Supervisor seems common.
New person transferred into a well established tight group that has worked together 10 to 15 years,,,the new guy gets the PIP to protect the others, no matter the performance.
Transfer out of a group in January or February, former Supervisor has easy PIP target to reach mandatory PIP % without losing current headcount.
Absolute underperformance, very few.
Relative underperformance, especially when there is a mandated percent, absolutely yes.
Assessment is like a grading on a curve. I suspect most employees have never been graded on a curve hence the misunderstanding and complaining.
Also, don’t misinterpret this explanation for my endorsement of the process. I hate it. But I do think people who work at EM can at least comprehend relative assessment.
Now, as for bias in the process… plenty to gripe about there.
underperforming relative to their pay? plenty and often deserved
That’s your perception. In SG, they are lazy and nasty… without them we will be better! WAEM!