My friend was let go from Goog ~ 3 weeks ago.
Was classified as "underperforming," put on PIP, worked his ass off while on PIP, and then fired without any severance.
He was with Goog for 3 years, not a new hire.
Same thing happened to a team mate 2 weeks ago. He was told he was 'underperforming', put on a PIP. He responded and upped his game a lot. Couple of weeks go walked into a meeting to find HR sitting with his manager to deliver the bad news. Might be a coincidence, then again might not be. Who knows.
What does PIP mean in this context? Is it a probationary status, or a "here's a mentor to teach you to work better" status, or some combination of the two, perhaps?
PIP is a Performance Improvement Plan. It's not a Google thing, these things are common in corporate America.
The employee is asked to sign a document that admits they are underperforming, with the promise that they can turn the situation around through their own efforts. In practice, the PIP is used to provide an evidence trail to fire someone.
PIP is not the same thing as being laid off. In a layoff, you sometimes can get your boss to sign a letter that states this was NOT termination due to poor performance.
That sounds like simple blackmail to me. Sign this now or we'll fire your ass today, if you sign we may not fire you in the future, but we definitely will be able to a lot easier.
Actually, in my experience with a PIP, it doesn't threaten you'll be fired today.
It's emotional blackmail. I was told, in black and white, that I sucked and I was holding everyone back. For anyone with any self-doubt or need for social approval, a statement like that will feel like a ton of bricks. But then they offer a path to redemption: sign a document, then complete these tasks, and all will be well again. Since I have a programmer's ego I feel I can code my way out of any situation. So I signed.
And I did so knowing full well that I was doing something against my interests. But oddly, at the time, that didn't matter as much to me as redeeming myself in other people's eyes.
If this ever happens to you, the thing to recognize is that at that moment, the company is no longer your friend (if it ever was) and from now on, every dealing with you is probably going to be backhanded. Loyalty and pride in accomplishment are suddenly bad traits for you to indulge in.
The best option may be to sign and slack off while you job-hunt. Or, if you are quick to realize that there is no way out, to offer to go away, in exchange for a decent amount of severance.
Either way, I was foolish to sign without getting a lawyer to examine the document first.
Completely agree. If you find yourself on a PIP, start looking for a new job elsewhere ASAP. Speaking as a manager who has seen this play out several times at different companies, a performance improvement plan should always be seen as invitation to leave. It always surprises me how few people get that. The company is essentially saying, "We're just not that into you."
If the company is large enough, they'll almost always be willing to pay you something (4-6 weeks salary is fairly standard) to go away quietly. Your best bet is to negotiate some kind of exit package while simultaneously looking for new employment. If you're good at it you can dovetail them so that your employment record is seamless. Your employer may even be willing to give you time off to interview. (Remember, they want you to leave.)
The chances of making a comeback after being put on a PIP are slim. It's a HR formality that's essentially a prelude to termination, to protect the company from potential litigation. I don't have hard numbers, but I'd estimate that 75%+ of employees placed on a PIP will either leave or be terminated within 3 months.
Lastly, a PIP doesn't mean you're a bad person. In fact, it may not even be a reflection of your performance. Sometimes personality and budget issues play a large role. American companies don't have many options when cutting staff, and they often default to this one when they don't want "layoff" headlines. I'm not defending it (it's a sucky practice), but see it for what it is, try not to take it personally, and get the hell out before things get really bad.
I don't know. Perhaps someone else here has experience with that?
Another tactic to get rid of people is to simply take away all their important work. They aren't advancing in the company, and they are losing status in the team. Many people will just quit, or make a lateral move to some other team. The latter option might have been open to me.
at that moment, the company is no longer your friend (if it ever was)
One time, in an evaluation, the first thing my boss said was "if I were to ask your colleagues right now, you would be fired". I was stunned. I thought I had been doing good work and got on well with everyone.
Later I discovered that this wasn't actually true; it's a tactic they teach in whatever management training course this company sent their people on, to keep the staff off balance. Yeah, that company isn't around anymore.
You can get on well with your cow-orkers and enjoy interacting with people at work but you CANNOT be friends with anyone you report to or who reports to you. Eventually they will have to screw you or you will have to screw them. That's just the way companies work.
...but you CANNOT be friends with anyone you report to or who reports to you. Eventually they will have to screw you or you will have to screw them.
Can't disagree more. If you're clueless about everything outside your job responsibilities, then I could see how that's true, but if you're at least moderately engaged with those you report to, you can certainly have friendships.
Nobody looks to screw anyone over - constantly ask hard and honest questions - if your boss says "if I were to ask your colleagues right now, you would be fired", ask "do you think it's something we can work out, or should we talk about my leaving the company?"
Be honest with your superiors, and demand they be honest with you.
You've missed the point. My work was fine, and he knew that. He said that only to establish a power relationship because that was how that company worked. I learnt that when a) all my colleagues reported being told exactly the same thing (what, everyone wanted everyone to be fired?) and b) when I later became a team lead it was right there in the course materials (tho' I never did it myself).
Up until that point I had thought my manager and I were friends; he did me a great service early in my career by revealing the truth about how organizations operate.
He said that only to establish a power relationship because that was how that company worked.
Well, establishing a relationship of respect and power is part of management, but there's absolutely no reason one needs to be a dick to do that.
Up until that point I had thought my manager and I were friends
That sucks, sorry to hear it. Maybe it's a sign of the times (I've only been in the industry about a year), or just the managers I've been fortunate to work under, but in my experience, coders always get more respect than to be bullshitted like that. It all comes down to money, I think:
If the company pays you less money than the wealth you generate, and provides good enough benefits/environment, you're playing a win/win game where everyone's happy. Yes, there are times when your interests diverge - your manager has a budget to minimize and you have a family to support, but those are exceptions to the rule.
A good boss gives you fair warning so you don't have to implement/sign the PIP.
I had a tendency of coming in fashionably late at my job. Like 945/10am/1015am/1030am. It was very inconsistent and laissez faire attitude 'i don't care when i show up'. To the point where my boss was like we want you to be consistently on time - because they actually do worry if sometime bad happened (e.g. accident) if you're not there. And my boss was like if you don't start coming in consistently - we're going to have to put you on a performance plan. And he was like - "you don't want to be put on a performance plan". He explained how it would basically track when I got in every day and graph it and median/max had to be within a certain range. If you go outside the variance, you basically are terminated. I started coming in consistently from then on. And realized how bad it looked when I would schlep in at post-930 (not just for me, but for my boss and our team.
> And realized how bad it looked when I would schlep in at post-930 (not just for me, but for my boss and our team.
>
> Problem solved.
I was in this sort of situation too.
I know it sounds bad to say "I solved my personal problem by quitting", but I think in my case it was justified, and that sometimes it's a very good idea.
I never came in after 10:30, which is not all that late, especially considering I left at around 7 and did plenty of work at home. I added a ton of modern infrastructure to their application. I wrote documentation on everything. I introduced unit testing. I did weekly training classes for the other developers. I helped anyone that had any problem. (I also wrote code!)
I never even got a "thanks" for this. Instead, I got lectures about not being a "team player". (Apparently a "team player" is someone who warms their chair early in the morning, not someone who goes out of his way to help the other team members.)
Anyway, I just wanted to provide some contrast here. Sometimes it's in your best interest to be a good little employee and do whatever your superiors tell you. Other times, it's best to tell them to fuck off and die.
(And for the record, the job I got after that one is my current job. Nobody has had this conversation with me, and I love them as a result :)
> A good boss gives you fair warning so you don't have to implement/sign the PIP.
Having been a manager before, I agree with that 100%. As a manager, you have a big impact on people's lives. This is particularly true in a recession, when they cannot get another job so easily. You owe them frank, constructive feedback on their performance. By the time you get to a PIP, it is too late. Of course, some people still won't change, even if they are made aware of the issue. More frequently, their personality/interests are just not a good fit for the job. It sounds like most people discussed in the OP were "ambushed".
You may joke about it, but these aren't a joking matter. The ultimate function of the HR department is to prevent management from being sued. If an employee who has been around for a few years and has a good history is suddenly put on such a plan it means some manager has decided that they simply don't like them. It's turning the resources of the organization into a mechanism for bullying an individual. Never, ever sign one, and start researching the law around unfair dismissal.
You're right, I guess, but ... yuck. I suppose that's another reason why I prefer smaller companies. I think companies ought to be free to hire and fire who they want, when they want, even when it's a stupid decision.
If a company had a legal right to fire me whenever they wanted, and I had a mortgage or family, I wouldn't work for them unless they agreed to waive that right and give me several months notice (or severance).
"At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can break the relationship with no liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargain (i.e. a union)."
This is the default employment relationship in the US. Most states, in particular California, have implied contract or good faith exceptions to this, where an employee has more protection, but the law is different in every state, and if you do not have an explicit contract, you should probably operate under the assumption that your company can terminate you at any time, without cause.
I think there should be a social safety net too, that all profitable companies pay into. That way, you're not screwed if you're fired, but the company is still free to act as they see fit. Perhaps they're even less constrained in some ways, because they know they're not throwing you to the wolves, so to speak. Contractual negotiations, like you mention, might also be a sensible approach to providing something similar, but they would only tend to cover workers with enough bargaining power to obtain them, either by being really valuable, or via unions or something.
In Italy, companies, not the government, form the social safety net, because it's nearly impossible to fire people. This has created a huge mess - people are afraid to change jobs, people work for years doing stuff they're not good at or don't like, companies can't hire young people... It's a bad solution.
In theory unemployment pay is similar to this system, but in practice... maybe not so much. Personally I don't know anyone who's ever received severance pay either.
In general I think "at will" employment is a net win, but it's certainly not a friendly system.
It is tho' a system in which everyone knows at all times where they stand. There's no need for backhanded techniques like "performance plans" that are only really about stripping the employee of what legal protection they do have.
A small percentage of Wall Street workers who have jumped ship from a 'marquee' firm to a smaller firm have gotten 'guaranteed employment contracts' in which the company guarantees to pay them X amount a month for 1-2 years. Basically, they don't get laid off because the company has to pay them anyway.
Wall Street employees can get 60% to 80% of their take home pay from bonuses. So while I'm sure they would be a lot of money over those months, it wouldn't be anywhere close to the actual pay once you include bonuses.
Do you expect to have the same responsibility to your employer? Namely, that you can't jump ship two weeks before a product is supposed to ship/go live?
I've experienced both sides of at-will employment (being "released to industry" because of a lack of funds and leaving a company for a clearly better job), and am happy to live with both. A savings account is protection against a company terminating my employment without notice.
Then that's what you should get in your contract when the hire you. They will probably stipulate that you must give them X notice where X is a fairly is larger than average, with the stipulation that if you aren't performing at a good level during X period they can somehow get money from you...
At the top level in CxO roles, it is normal to have it written into your contract that if you get fired you will go on getting paid for so many months/years, all your options will immediately vest, etc. Scam, or equivalent to tenure for college professors? Varies, I guess.
We are all capitalists at heart but I’m always baffled by this company who makes Billions of dollars, claim to do no evil and put on schemes to keep the hard earned dollar of engineers. It is a shame!
My impression has always been that Google has a "systemic hiring problem", as well as some deep organizational problems that make it very hard to get true productivity out of their workforce. 18 hour days are the last resort of bad managers. Then you get to the "The beatings will continue until morale improves!" phase, which sounds like where they're at now.
The original Goog model just wasn't scalable, and now they have to completely re-engineer the company. It won't be easy.
Can you elaborate? What is their systemic hiring problem? What are some of the deep organizational problems? What was the original model and why doesn't it scale?
I suspect some of these might be obvious to people close to Google but I'm intensely curious.
My own anecdote: when I interviewed with Google it seemed to me that there was a lot of kool-aid drinking and elitism in the process.
There was a time when if you were not from Stanford you didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting hired. Obviously as Google grew this requirement flew out the window, but they are still extremely biased against people from "lesser" colleges, even ones who have impressive portfolios and experience. In my experience academics is one of the poorest indicators of actual work performance you can use.
Note that this isn't sour grapes :P Google recruits heavily from my college (lucky me?), but I generally dislike companies that assign too much weight to academics. This includes NVidia, which enforces a strict minimum-GPA requirement on all hires, but I digress.
During my interview my interviewer seemed to really have a problem because I wasn't a die-hard Google fanatic. At the time I had a Gmail account that was idle most of the time, I didn't do the Google home page bit (my google experiences are strictly vanilla), and outside of Google Maps my interaction with G-products are relatively limited. He didn't seem to take that so well.
I ask because if you applied for a Sysadmin (or somesuch) position, I can see your lack of usage of Google products as fairly irrelevant. But if you were going for some sort of product development post, I can see why your interviewer might be somewhat uninterested in you.
I have no specific knowledge, but I'd be surprised if there was a general layoff in Engineering. It seems more likely that they are pushing on people they have classified as "underperforming". I think they also shut down a few remote offices (there was a blog post about this), and anyone who doesn't want to relocate will be out.
crises are a great excuse to lay off a bunch of people that were on the low side of 'acceptable' anyway.
In 'good' times employers can get quite a backlash from doing this, in 'bad' times nobody complains and those that get to keep their jobs will work harder to avoid being 'axed' because of the crisis.
Oldest trick in the book, I've seen this happen at a bank where I worked in the gray past.
It would not surprise me one bit if employers would exaggerate the situation in order to push through even more layoffs.
Agreed. I think it is highly unlikely that PIP is being used on a large scale as a real cost-cutting measure. PIP takes months. More likely, they simply are realizing that they have some duds on staff. They've grown tremendously in the past four years, and not all those hires were gems.
I have even heard that there are new hiring rules, that engineers now have to have X years of experience doing Y before they can be hired. Which is totally anti-old-school-Google; they would hire the greenest college kid if s/he seemed brilliant and industrious. This suggests that they now believe they have a systemic hiring problem. Or, that brilliance is now not as important as experience. Either way, it suggests that Google is changing.
Your comment now doesn't make sense because I edited out that bit.
I couldn't care less about identifying him though... he's not a friend, he's more like a former enemy-co-worker. ;) We struggled to fire him for months and then when we heard he got hired at Google you could have knocked us over with a feather.
After reading this, I think this comment was in poor thinking: the PIP would carry a stigma -- usually companies let of under performers as a part of a bigger lay off (no stigma attached, as positions have been eliminated -- not the individuals); here it seems to be they're doing the opposite (they're firing people as to avoid publicizing a general lay off). Of course I don't know the true situation, so this is mere speculation.
I've switched jobs (voluntarily) when the recession just hit (September '08). I still get requests from headhunters, without looking. Part of it has to do with having Yahoo! on my resume -- and I'd imagine having Google would somewhat more impressive.
It's just a job someone will find now may not be a job on their terms.
These people are talking about having lots of friends that could get a job anywhere (as in, they're unbelievably awesome). I wish I had a ton of friends like that. Either their standards are lower, or this is the fundamental thing about SV that I miss.
I think a large organization like Google, with thousands of engineers can safely fire say 10% without loosing much productivity. I refuse to believe that Google has some magic hiring strategy that allows them to hire only smart, motivated and productive people. I'm sure they, like every other large corporation (PIP agreement?!) have a 10% "fat layer" of people who are not very motivated, productive, etc. I'm not saying these people are stupid, they just might not fit in or whatever.
