Respectfully, in your post you literally say you got a new manager who PIPed you for being hard to work with. The whole tone of the article feels like rehashing old disagreements.

> I didn't get along well with this manager, The resulting conflict lead to a "performance enablement plan", a procedure meant to get things back on track before the need for a "performance improvement plan" (PIP). A PIP is meant to be used as a last attempt at improving the relationship between an employee, their work, and their employer.

Not getting along with someone doesn't imply or mean that a person is difficult to manage. Instead, it means there's simply friction between two people.

In this specific case, the main source of friction was that my messed up working hours resulted in me performing tasks later than expected (though still within any deadlines), though I recall those time frames not being well specified to begin with (i.e. it was more of an implicit assumption that X would be done by hour Y).

I believe I was also a little late for a meeting because I'd overslept. That's not good, but it certainly isn't a case of "Wow this person is so difficult", instead more of a case of "This person needs to get his schedule back together".

Either way, you seem to be interpreting the story in a way different from what's written down. I doubt I can change that, so I'm going to leave it at this comment.

changes bring some adjustment uncertainty, and sometimes it goes well, things get better, sometimes it gets worse. with enough time you'll draw a short stick. it sucks.

Because colleagues have told me so, and the annual employee reviews were positive as well. In fact, outside the PEP the only actionable/to-improve feedback I got was essentially "Sometimes you can be a little harsh/blunt", which is vastly different from "this person is difficult to work with".