Hr Performance Improvement Plan

---
name: hr-performance-improvement-plan
description: Drafts a passable Performance Improvement Plan with the specific gap and dated examples, SMART expectations, the support offered, review points and the possible outcomes, after a pre-check of who decided a PIP is warranted. Use for "run hr-performance-improvement-plan", "write a PIP", "performance improvement plan", "how to write a performance improvement plan", "PIP template", "put someone on a PIP", "our PIPs never work", "set PIP check-ins", part of the AI for HR Pack by Polar Bear.
---

# Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)

## When To Use
Everyone says nobody comes back from a PIP, and you need one that is actually passable. A manager has a documented performance gap, coaching has not closed it, and you need a plan that states the standard, the help and the dates so the employee can genuinely meet it.

## When Not To Use
If the issue is conduct (lateness as a rule breach, rudeness, a policy breach) rather than capability, use Disciplinary Procedure. If the person is still in probation, use Probation Review. If someone has already decided the person is leaving, stop: a PIP does not replace that decision, and writing one as a formality is the failure this skill exists to prevent.

## Inputs
- Who decided a PIP is warranted, and when; what coaching or feedback came first, with dates
- The gap (specific work, dates, effect, from the manager's records) and the role's expectations
If you have none of this, I start from the pre-check alone and mark the output as a first draft; I do not write a gap from impressions.

## Approach
The plan follows the SHRM guidance on performance improvement plans (shrm.org, "8 Steps for Effective Performance Improvement Plans"): a documented gap, a clear standard, support, regular check-ins and a stated end. Each expectation is written to SMART, from Doran's 1981 Management Review paper (summary at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria). The judgment is that a PIP is expectations plus support, never a rating: it describes work, not the person. The failure it prevents: a plan full of adjectives ("lacks ownership") that nobody could pass because nobody can say what passing looks like.

## Workflow
1. Ask three questions: who decided a PIP is warranted and on what date; where does the person work (country, and state or province where it matters); how long a plan and how often you will meet (SHRM describes a minimum of 30 days, with 60 or 90 more usual; you set it).
2. Run the pre-check and stop if any line fails: a named manager made the call; coaching came first; this is capability, not misconduct; no decision to dismiss has been made. If the stated purpose is to exit someone, I say so and do not draft.
3. Write the gap as observable facts only: the work, the date, the effect. Strip every adjective about the person; if a line cannot be made factual, it goes back to the manager.
4. Turn each gap into one SMART expectation: specific, measurable, assignable, realistic, time-related. Keep it to three or four; ten objectives is a plan built to fail.
5. List support against each expectation: training, resources, manager time, and adjustments to consider. If the manager cannot commit to the check-ins, the plan does not start.
6. Set review points weekly or every two weeks, each with a short written summary of the manager's facts. Leave, sickness, health or disability raised during the plan pauses it for an adviser.
7. State the possible outcomes plainly (met, extended, next step under your procedure), who decides and when, and the adviser questions for the person's country.

## Output Format
```markdown
# Performance Improvement Plan
**Employee:** [name] **Manager:** [name] **Dates:** [start] to [end] **PIP decided by:** [name] on [date]
## The gap
| Work or task | Date | What happened | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| [example: report] | [date] | [fact from the manager] | [effect] |
## Expectations and support
| Expectation (SMART) | Measure | By | Support offered | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [expectation] | [measure] | [date] | [training, time, resource] | [name] |
## Check-ins
| Date | Progress (manager's facts) | Support given | Employee's comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| [date] | [facts] | [support] | [their words] |
## Possible outcomes
[Met: plan closes. Extended: to [date], reason recorded. Not met: next step under [procedure].]
## Adviser questions
- [Confirm with a qualified adviser for [country]: status of a PIP, leave or health during the plan, next step]
## Decision
[Named person] decides the outcome at the final review on [date], from the check-in record.
```

## Done When
- The pre-check passes and names who decided a PIP is warranted, with the date
- Every gap line is a dated fact about work; no adjective describes the person
- Each expectation meets all five SMART tests and has support against it
- Check-in dates are in the manager's diary and the outcome decider is named

## Quality Bar
- Never write an assessment or rating of the person (attitude, commitment, potential, fit); the plan measures work against the expectation
- No invented targets, dates or durations; unknowns stay [placeholders]
- Check-in notes are the manager's facts, never Claude's evaluation
- Claude writes the process, never the verdict: it never screens, ranks, scores or reads people, a named person decides and signs every decision about someone, and every legal point goes to a qualified adviser for the country it concerns.

## Next
Run hr-disciplinary-procedure (Disciplinary Procedure) so the next step after the plan is written before it is needed.

## About the makers

This pack is made by Polar Bear, a consultancy built by ex-McKinsey founders with a dream to make AI work for People, not instead of them. We help our clients build people systems and AI-first ways of working, and we run our own company on Claude. If your team has outgrown the self-serve version, message Pauline (linkedin.com/in/paulinebertry).