Use one when the work is short of the bar
The person knows the job and is not doing it to standard, and a conversation about it has already happened.
A plan should tell someone exactly what has to change, by when, and what help they will get while they do it. Niyuk keeps the goals, the weekly check-ins and the final decision on the employee record, so everyone is working from the same document.
A performance improvement plan, usually shortened to PIP, is a written plan used when someone's work is short of what the role needs. It names the gap, sets out what has to change, gives a date to change it by, and says what support the person gets in the meantime.
It is not a warning letter and it is not a dismissal. A plan written properly has a real chance of ending with the person keeping the job, which is the only version worth running. The ones that fail usually fail for the same two reasons: the goals were never written in a way anybody could measure, and nobody checked in until the last week.
Two cases it fits, and two it does not.
The person knows the job and is not doing it to standard, and a conversation about it has already happened.
You can say which part of the job is short and what better would look like. If you cannot, the plan is not ready to be written.
Rudeness, dishonesty and unsafe work are disciplinary matters, not performance ones, and they follow a different process.
A plan written to justify a decision already taken is a paper trail, and people can tell. It rarely holds up when it is read back later either.
Nothing in the plan should be news to the person on it.
The plan is written after the talk, not instead of it. Nobody should read about a problem for the first time in a document.
The gap, two or three goals with a measure against each, the support on offer, and the date it ends.
A short catch-up, written down against the goals. A plan looked at once at the end was never really a plan.
Passed, extended or not passed, with the reason set against the same goals the plan opened with.
So the ending is read against the beginning.
The plan, every check-in and the outcome sit together on the employee record, so nobody is reading an older copy of it.
Each weekly catch-up comes up for the manager and the employee, and what was said is saved against the plan it belongs to.
At the end the outcome is written against what was asked for, so the reason given is the one the plan started with.
Which one gives somebody a fair chance of fixing it?
| Area | Handled in conversation | Handled as a written plan Recommended | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| What has to change | Explained in a meeting | Written down and agreed | The person can act on it |
| How it is measured | A judgement call | A measure against each goal | Two managers reach the same answer |
| How long it runs | Open ended | A start date and an end date | It cannot quietly drift for a year |
| Support offered | Promised out loud | Named in the plan | The help actually turns up |
| Check-ins | When somebody remembers | Booked weekly and written down | Trouble shows up early |
| What the employee has | Their notes from the meeting | The same plan the manager has | No argument about what was said |
| The decision | Made on an impression | Made against the goals | The reason still makes sense later |
| If the person improves | Hard to point at | Shows against each goal | Good work gets the credit |
| A change of manager | The new manager starts over | The plan and the notes stay | The clock does not reset |
| A year later | Nobody can find it | Still on the record | The history is there if it is needed |
Write it down, check in every week, and decide against what you asked for.
Asked by the people writing one, and by the people on one.
It is a written plan used when someone's work is below what their role needs. It sets out the gap, two or three things that have to change, how each one will be measured, what support the person gets, and the date the plan ends. It is a performance process, not a disciplinary one.
Not on its own. Plenty of people finish a plan and stay in the job, and that is what a plan written properly is for. It is also fair to say that some are run as a formality after a decision has already been made. The way to tell is whether the goals are specific and reachable in the time given, and whether anyone is checking in along the way. If the goals are vague or nobody can say what passing looks like, ask for both in writing.
Usually 30, 60 or 90 days. The length should follow the work rather than the calendar: a plan about hitting a monthly target needs at least a couple of cycles to show anything, while a plan about turning work around faster shows up inside a fortnight. Anything under 30 days is rarely long enough for a person to change and for the change to be visible.
Five things. What is falling short, in plain terms and with examples. Two or three goals, each with a way to measure it. The support on offer, such as training, coaching or a lighter load. The dates of the check-ins. And what happens at the end, in each direction, so the person knows what passing and not passing both look like.
A signature on most plans means the person has received it, not that they agree with it, and many plans have a line for the employee to write their own comments. What a refusal means in practice depends on local employment law and on your own company policy, so check both rather than taking a general answer from a website.
One of three things. The plan is passed and the person carries on. It is extended, usually because there was real progress and not quite enough time. Or it is not passed, and the company moves to whatever its policy says next. Whichever it is, the reason should be written against the same goals the plan opened with.