But HR sees it as a way to prevent a subpar employee from escaping the natural HR process. The fact that you have not been informed yet is just a failure of current management to follow process, but does not obsolve you of your subpar performance. HR is there for the company, not for you.
But really, if the only goal is to not be able to shirk a PIP by repeated team-hopping, the PIP should just follow you as you move teams rather than blocking your progress, right?
"Here's Joe Candidate, he applied for your open position, and he has a 3 month old PIP on track to be resolved in 3 months. Accept or decline the transfer to your team?"
In theory that would be good. The issue is that a lot of managers don't like dealing with problems. If somebody is doing badly and maybe should be fired (which is what a PIP is supposed to indicate) you don't want a manager just passing the buck to some unsuspecting team.
Ultimately, I think you're right. It's impossible to build a bureaucratic pachinko machine that will make the correct personnel decisions. You really need line managers dedicated to coaching staff, and higher-level managers coaching line managers. One-size-fits-all rules are not the optimal solution. But bad management is endemic in so many organizations that I'm sure these abuses go on all the time.
