---
name: performance-improvement-plan
description: Use when asked to write or structure a performance improvement plan (PIP) — a formal, time-boxed remediation plan for specific underperformance — as distinct from a routine performance-review-meeting, which evaluates performance broadly rather than fixing a defined problem on a deadline.
---

# Performance Improvement Plan

A performance improvement plan (PIP) is a formal, written, time-boxed
document that names specific performance gaps, sets measurable
expectations for closing them, and states what happens if they aren't
closed. It's triggered by a specific, persistent problem, not the
regular cadence of a [[performance-review-meeting]] — a PIP is what
happens when routine feedback hasn't fixed something and the
organization needs a documented, deadline-driven attempt to fix it.

## Key components

- **Specific, measurable expectations** — each expectation stated in
  [[smart-criteria]] terms, so both manager and employee can later
  agree, without argument, on whether it was met.
- **Defined timeline** — a fixed start and end date (commonly 30, 60,
  or 90 days), stated up front rather than left open-ended.
- **Check-in cadence** — regular, scheduled meetings during the plan
  (weekly or biweekly) to review progress against each expectation, not
  just a single meeting at the start and one at the end.
- **Support offered** — the training, mentoring, tools, or adjusted
  workload the organization will actually provide to make improvement
  realistic, not just demands placed on the employee.
- **Stated consequences** — what happens if expectations are met,
  partially met, or not met by the end date, written plainly rather
  than implied.

## Genuine improvement tool vs. documentation before termination

A PIP has two possible real functions, and confusing them undermines
the tool: it can be a genuine attempt to help someone succeed, or it
can be a formal record built to support a termination decision already
effectively made. Both are legitimate uses in different situations, but
treating every PIP as the latter — writing it as a paper trail with
goals designed to be unmet — means employees learn to distrust the
process, managers stop using it as an actual improvement lever, and the
PIPs that were meant sincerely get read with the same suspicion as the
ones that weren't. Being honest internally about which kind a given
plan is (and, where appropriate, with the employee) keeps the tool
useful for the cases it's meant to help.

## Common pitfalls

- **Vague or unmeasurable goals** — "improve communication" or "show
  more initiative" gives no way to judge success at the end date, and
  reads as pretext even when it isn't.
- **No real support offered** — a plan that lists expectations but no
  training, mentoring, or workload adjustment puts the entire burden on
  the employee and signals the plan isn't meant to be won.
- **Check-ins that don't happen** — a cadence set on paper but skipped
  in practice means neither side has real signal on progress until the
  end date, when it's too late to adjust.
- **Goals set without the employee's input** — a plan handed down
  rather than discussed reduces buy-in and can miss real obstacles the
  employee could have flagged early.
- **No clear timeline or consequences** — an open-ended plan, or one
  that never states what happens at the end, leaves both sides guessing
  and drags out an unresolved situation.
- **Used as a surprise** — a PIP that raises problems never mentioned
  in prior [[performance-review-meeting]]s undermines its own
  legitimacy and can look retaliatory regardless of intent.

## Learn more

- [[performance-review-meeting]] for the routine evaluation cadence a
  PIP escalates beyond.
- [[smart-criteria]] for writing the measurable expectations a PIP
  depends on.
- [[offboarding-checklist]] for the process that follows if a PIP ends
  in departure.
- [[exit-interview]] for capturing feedback if the outcome is a
  departure.