Writing a performance improvement plan well is harder than it looks. The structure is straightforward; the content is what separates a defensible plan from a pretextual one. This is the manager-side methodology — what to gather, what to write, what to avoid.
What's on this page
Most weak PIPs are weak because of what wasn't done in the two hours before the drafting started. Five preparation tasks, in order.
Is the issue significant enough for a PIP, or is a written warning the right step? Is there a clear performance gap, or are you frustrated with the employee for other reasons? Talk to HR before drafting. If your honest read is that the relationship is already over, that's a different conversation — possibly severance, not a PIP.
For each performance concern: specific dated incidents, quantitative data (Salesforce, ticket logs, attendance system), and the prior conversations that addressed these issues. If you can't find documented evidence for a concern, leave it out of the PIP — including it weakens the rest.
Has the employee recently taken protected leave (FMLA, parental, disability, military)? Made a complaint? Requested accommodation? Disclosed a medical condition? If yes, work with HR or counsel before issuing — the PIP needs to be especially well-documented to demonstrate the performance concerns predated and aren't pretextual to the protected activity.
Are similarly-situated employees with similar issues being treated similarly? If three engineers had similar pipeline coverage issues last year and you only put one of them on a PIP, the inconsistency is itself a problem. HR can help you spot this.
30 days for clear-cut issues with quick-feedback measurement (attendance, call volume). 60 days for most performance issues. 90 days for behavior, cultural fit, or anything requiring a sustained pattern to demonstrate. Don't pick the period based on when you want this resolved — pick it based on what's realistically achievable.
The single hardest part of writing a PIP. Most objectives are written too vaguely because vague feels safe. Vague is what gets your PIP overturned.
"Improve communication with the team."
What does "improve" mean? Who decides? Communication with the whole team or specific people? At what frequency? This objective cannot be evaluated fairly because no two reviewers would agree on what success looks like.
"Send weekly status updates to the cross-functional stakeholder group (Sarah, Marcus, Priya) every Friday by 5pm PT, summarizing the week's progress, blockers, and next-week priorities. To be measured by: (a) on-time delivery for at least 8 of the 9 plan weeks; (b) qualitative confirmation from the three stakeholders in week 9 that the updates are useful."
Specific action, specific cadence, specific recipients, specific measurement, specific success threshold. Both parties know what counts as "met."
Every objective should pass this test before the PIP is finalized:
Every concern in a PIP should be supported by documented evidence. This is what separates a defensible PIP from one that gets overturned in arbitration or in court.
Not 'a few times last quarter' — specific dates of specific incidents. If you can't name three dates, the concern probably can't survive scrutiny.
Where the role has numbers (sales, support, engineering throughput), use them. Pull reports, snapshot them, save them outside the company systems the employee will eventually lose access to.
Emails, Slack messages, meeting recordings — anything where the issue was raised or where the conduct occurred. Preserve the original, do not edit.
Peer feedback, customer complaints, 360 review responses. These should be anonymised if shared but documented with source attribution in HR's internal copy.
When was this concern first raised with the employee? Verbal warning notes, prior written warnings, performance review excerpts. Establishes that the PIP isn't a surprise.
Where similarly-situated employees demonstrate what the standard looks like. 'Team average over Q1 was X; this employee was Y.' Helps demonstrate the standard isn't being applied selectively.
"Lacks attention to detail" — without three specific dated incidents — is unverifiable. Replace every adjective with a behavioral example or remove it.
Objectives that depend on the employee doing things outside their control (other teams' cooperation, market conditions, customer behavior). If the employee can't unilaterally meet the objective, the PIP is structured to fail.
"Brings the team down" or "has a bad attitude" is personality framing. PIPs are about performance and conduct. Convert to behavior: what specific actions, with what specific impact.
"Manager will provide support as needed" is not a support commitment. Specific: weekly 1:1, coaching with X, access to Y, training Z. If the company isn't actually providing support, the PIP is pretextual.
If the cause is medical, family, mental health, or related to a workplace issue (harassment, dysfunctional team, bad system), a PIP is the wrong tool. Worse, it may be unlawful. HR engagement helps surface this before drafting.
Different employees with similar issues getting different responses. If three engineers had pipeline coverage issues and only one is on a PIP, the others should at least be on warnings. Inconsistency creates legal exposure and erodes trust.
The PIP is delivered in a scheduled conversation, never by surprise and never by email-only. Schedule a 30-minute meeting (in person or video). Both the manager and an HR representative present.
The conversation flow: state directly that you are issuing a PIP, hand over the printed document, walk through each section briefly, answer factual questions (don't debate the assessment in the moment), and confirm the 24-48 hour review window before signature is expected.
What not to do: don't soften the message to the point that the employee leaves unclear about what just happened (this is the most common manager mistake). Don't apologise for issuing it. Don't let the conversation slide into negotiation — the review window exists for that.
In the first 48 hours after delivery: respond to factual disputes in writing, schedule the first weekly 1:1 for the following week, and begin the support commitments immediately. The employee's first impression of whether the plan is serious comes from your behavior in the first week.
First time: 4-6 hours, plus 1-2 hours of HR review. Once you've written a few, 2-3 hours. The biggest time cost is gathering documentation — performance data, dated incidents, evidence sources. The writing itself is often less than half the total time. Don't rush this; the documentation you assemble is what defends the decision later.
HR partner should review every PIP before it's issued. Best practice is to draft with HR involved from the start — HR sees patterns across the company, knows the legal landscape, and catches issues the manager won't see. The manager writes; HR reviews; both sign off before delivery.
For companies under 50 employees, the founder or COO often plays this role. The principle is the same: someone other than the issuing manager reviews the plan for fairness, consistency with similar situations elsewhere in the company, and legal soundness. Outside employment counsel can serve this role for very small companies.
Specific dated incidents, quantitative performance data (where the role has numbers), and the recent performance review history. Without these, the PIP is just an opinion — which is rarely defensible if challenged. Spend the first 2 hours of writing on evidence collection, then draft.
No — but you should always include a 24-48 hour review window after issuance where the employee can dispute factual inaccuracies. Drafts shared in advance change the document's character (it becomes a negotiation, not a directive) and can complicate the relationship. Share the final document in the issuing conversation and use the review window for any corrections.
The free template gives you the structure to fill in. The paid version adds editorial guidance, legal review, and the bracketed language for the trickier clauses.