Day 8: Write a Performance Improvement Plan

The concept

A Performance Improvement Plan is not a threat dressed as a document. It is a structured attempt to help an employee reach the required standard, while making the organisation's expectations clear.

That distinction matters. In many workplaces, a PIP has a reputation as the beginning of the end. Employees hear "PIP" and assume the decision has already been made. Managers sometimes use the process only after frustration has built up. HR may be asked to "put something formal in place" when the real issue is that expectations were unclear for months.

AI can help draft the structure, but a PIP is too sensitive to treat as a simple writing task. The quality of the input, the factual evidence, the legal context, and the employer's genuine willingness to support improvement all matter.

Plain English

A fair PIP tells the employee what is not working, what standard is required, what support will be provided, and how progress will be reviewed.

Start with facts, not frustration

Managers often arrive at HR with a mixture of facts and conclusions.

Facts sound like:

• three client reports were submitted after the agreed deadline
• two stakeholder emails went unanswered for more than five working days
• the employee did not complete required compliance training by the deadline
• the manager gave feedback on 12 March and followed up by email on 14 March

Conclusions sound like:

• lacks ownership
• does not care
• poor attitude
• not a team player
• unreliable

The conclusions may reflect a real pattern, but they do not belong in a PIP unless they are translated into observable behaviour. AI can help with this translation, but HR should check every line.

A PIP needs a clear standard

It is not enough to tell someone they need to improve. The required standard must be visible.

A weak standard says:

Improve communication with stakeholders.

A better standard says:

Respond to stakeholder requests within one working day, confirm the next action, and update the manager if a response requires more time.

The better version gives the employee something to do. It also gives the manager something to review.

Good improvement standards are:

• specific
• measurable where possible
• relevant to the role
• realistic within the timeline
• connected to previous feedback
• clear about what good looks like

If the standard cannot be defined, the PIP is not ready.

Include genuine support

A PIP that lists consequences but no support is not a performance improvement plan. It is a warning letter with extra steps.

Support may include:

• weekly check-ins
• clearer prioritisation
• training
• mentoring
• job aids
• workload adjustment
• shadowing
• written expectations
• feedback after key tasks
• reasonable adjustments where appropriate

Support does not mean lowering the required standard. It means giving the employee a fair opportunity to meet it.

Review context before issuing

Some context changes how HR should proceed.

Before issuing a PIP, review whether the employee has:

• raised a grievance
• disclosed a disability or health condition
• requested adjustments
• recently returned from leave
• raised whistleblowing concerns
• experienced a major workload or manager change
• received inconsistent feedback
• been given unclear objectives

These factors do not make performance issues disappear. They do mean HR should be careful, fair, and legally informed.

AI cannot know the full employment context unless you provide it, and even then it cannot replace qualified review.

Make the timeline proportionate

The improvement period should match the role and concern.

A simple behavioural standard may be reviewed over a few weeks. A complex capability gap may need longer. A sales activity standard may have weekly indicators. A strategic role may need milestone-based review.

Avoid arbitrary timelines. Ask:

• What can reasonably improve in this period?
• How often can progress be observed?
• What evidence will show movement?
• What support can the employer actually provide?
• What would success look like by each checkpoint?

The timeline should be firm enough to create urgency and fair enough to allow real improvement.

Prepare the manager for the meeting

The document is only part of the process. The PIP meeting matters.

Managers should be prepared to:

• explain the factual concerns calmly
• describe the required standard
• listen to the employee's context
• avoid debating every example defensively
• confirm support commitments
• explain review dates
• document employee questions
• avoid promises outside the policy

The tone should be serious, not punitive. The employee should understand the consequences, but also understand that improvement is the goal.

Use AI to improve the draft, not approve it

AI can help you:

• structure the PIP
• remove subjective wording
• identify missing evidence
• propose measurable standards
• draft meeting preparation questions
• flag legal review areas

It should not be used to decide whether a PIP is appropriate. That decision belongs to HR, the manager, and legal or employee relations where needed.

Build an evidence table first

Before drafting the PIP, create an evidence table. This is often more important than the document itself because it reveals whether the case is ready.

Use columns such as:

• concern
• date
• evidence
• impact
• prior feedback
• support already offered
• required standard
• confidence level
• follow-up needed

If the table is thin, pause. A PIP built on weak evidence will feel unfair to the employee and uncomfortable for the manager to defend.

For example, "missed deadlines" should become a list of actual deadlines, what was agreed, what happened, and what impact followed. "Poor communication" should become specific examples of missed updates, unclear messages, or delayed responses.

This preparation also helps the manager stay calm in the meeting. They can discuss facts instead of relying on memory or emotion.

Distinguish capability from conduct

Not every performance concern belongs in the same process.

Capability issues are about whether the employee can meet the standard with clarity, support, training, or time. Conduct issues are about behaviour, choices, or breaches of policy. Some cases involve both, but HR should be careful not to use a PIP when a different process is more appropriate.

Ask:

• Is this a skill gap?
• Is this a clarity gap?
• Is this a workload or resourcing issue?
• Is this misconduct?
• Has the employee had a fair chance to understand the standard?

The answer affects the route, the language, and the support required.

Today's practice

Choose one performance scenario. If you are using a live case, remove unnecessary personal data and follow your organisation's approved AI and data policies.

Run the prompt and review:

1. Is every concern factual and evidenced?
2. Is the required standard measurable enough?
3. Is the support meaningful?
4. Is the timeline proportionate?
5. What must be reviewed before issuing?

By the end, you should have a safer, clearer draft and a better understanding of whether the process is ready to begin.