If you're a manager in a situation where an employee has a problem and aren't meeting the job requirements, you'd probably much rather that they fix the problem and contribute to the team than fire them.
That doesn't mean that all of these plans are done in good faith, or that some managers aren't terrible. And for an employee on a PIP, they should think hard about leaving the company (or at least the team); it'll be better for their career.
But I don't think one can say that it's nothing more than a legal way to fire someone (especially since you can fire someone in most states in the US without cause, and spurious allegations of racial or other discrimination would need documentation that would be hard to produce if it didn't actually happen).
I don't think being put on a pip means firing is certain and imminent. I do think being put on a pip means firing is on the table and a serious threat. In that sense the analogy of 'putting a bullet in the chamber' is accurate if maybe a bit strong.
> And for an employee on a PIP, they should think hard about leaving the company (or at least the team); it'll be better for their career.
Considering both of these statements, a PIP is never the right answer if your objective is legitimate performance improvement.
Even if you're an unexperienced (or outright stupid) manager that doesn't understand this and wants to use a PIP as a legitimate performance improvement tool, the target employee is never going to be on good terms with you or your company and it's very unlikely you'll actually get the desired results. If you do, it's only because the employee has literally no choice but that loyalty will be out the window as soon as he is in a better position to make a move.
Honestly, I should have still quit, because it was burn-out over the role rather than compensation-related. But I stayed, and slacked a lot. Tracked my hours towards the end and I might get 12 actual hours of work done some weeks, including meetings. Still got most of my work done, but often with delays. It wasn't a perfect job, but the team was great and I liked the company culture.
My manager was very clear with me when I was PIPed that he really wanted us to work together to get me back on track. HR wouldn't consider letting me work part-time despite multiple conversations (it went against the company policy, and other people would start asking for it), but he tried to convince me to take paid time off instead. I decided to quit anyway, because I figured I was done spending most of my day configuring automated test pipelines and wanted to spend more time writing code that wasn't bash.
When I put in my notice, the manager tried to convince me to stay again, said they really wanted me just on track, and reiterated again that up to 4 months of paid leave was an option. Seemed really forlorn about the situation during the exit interview.
I honestly believe I could have worked my way out of the PIP, and the management would have preferred that outcome. Employing me at my current level of performance wasn't delivering the value they were paying for though, and quitting was ultimately the best situation for everyone involved.
Companies may additionally prefer to have more standardized procedures. Hiring is expensive, training is expensive, and cohesion can only be gained over a long time. By needing multiple steps to fire someone you reduce the chance you throw the baby out with the bathwater. And even if you’re sure someone is a negative factor and want to fire them with little prior notice, the people who you think are good are not mind readers and might even have a different opinion of their colleague and will question their own employment security.
