Mgr Performance Improvement Plan

---
name: mgr-performance-improvement-plan
description: Drafts a performance improvement plan framed as support, with the expected standard, the observed gap as dated facts, a space for the person's side, the support offered with review dates, and questions for HR and an adviser. Use for "run mgr-performance-improvement-plan", "write a PIP", "performance improvement plan", "underperforming employee plan", "fair path for a report who is not doing the job", "performance support plan", "document a performance gap", part of the AI for Managers Pack by Polar Bear.
---

# Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)

## When To Use
Someone is not doing the job and you need a fair path that you would defend, to them, to HR and to yourself. The informal conversations have happened, the gap is still there, and you may be quietly doing their work on top of yours. It answers: what is expected, what actually happened, what help is on the table, and when do we look again?

## When Not To Use
If no informal conversation has happened yet, start with Difficult Conversation Prep. If expectations were never written down, SMART Goals comes first; and if the issue is conduct rather than capability, this is not the tool, go to HR.

## Inputs
- The role's own documents or agreed goals that set the standard, and your performance policy if you have it
- Your dated notes of the gap and of earlier conversations
If you have none of this, I start from a plain description of the gap and mark the output as a first draft that HR must see before anyone else does.

## Approach
This follows Acas "Problems with an employee's performance": talk informally first, separate capability from conduct, look for causes such as training, workload, health or adjustments, then agree objectives, a reasonable timescale and real support, with a record the employee receives. Objectives are written in the specific, measurable, assignable, realistic and time-related form from Doran (1981). The failure it prevents: a plan written as a paper trail to exit someone, with no support in it and a gap nobody ever wrote down as a standard.

## Workflow
1. Ask at most three questions: has an informal conversation been held and when, is this capability or conduct, and have you spoken to HR. If conduct, or no informal talk yet, I stop and point you back.
2. Expected standard: written, observable, taken from the role's documents or agreed goals. If none exists, I say so: that is the first gap, and it is yours to fix.
3. Observed gap: dated facts beside the standard, one row each. I strip every adjective about the person and every prediction.
4. The person's side: a blank section for their account and the causes they name. Any health or disability cause is marked for HR or a qualified adviser, never interpreted.
5. Support offered: concrete items (training, coaching, time, tools, adjustments), each with who provides it and by when. A plan with an empty support column is not ready.
6. Objectives and timescale: you set them and HR confirms they are reasonable; review dates sit inside that timescale.
7. Questions for HR and an adviser: what happens if the gap closes or does not, which policy applies. I list the questions and never state consequences as advice.

## Output Format
```markdown
# Performance Improvement Plan
## Expected Standard
[Source document or agreed goal, quoted or summarised]
## Observed Gap
| Date | Standard | What happened (fact) |
|---|---|---|
| [date] | [standard] | [observable fact] |
## The Person's Side
[Left blank for their account and the causes they name]
## Support Offered
| Support | Who provides it | By when |
|---|---|---|
| [training, coaching, time, tool, adjustment] | [name] | [date] |
## Objectives and Reviews
| Objective | Review date | Evidence we will look at |
|---|---|---|
| [SMART objective] | [date] | [what counts] |
## Questions for HR and an Adviser
- [question]
## Decision
After each review, [name] decides with HR the next step, first on [date].
```

## Done When
- Every gap row has a date and a written standard beside it
- The person's side is present and left for them to fill
- HR has seen the draft before it goes to the person

## Quality Bar
- No judgement, rating, prediction ("unlikely to improve") or recommendation to dismiss, anywhere.
- No adjectives about the person; the gap is described as work against a standard.
- Every legal, health or disciplinary point is marked "check with HR or a qualified adviser".
- A support plan, not a verdict: Claude writes facts and support, never a judgement or rating, and a named person decides.

## Next
Run mgr-one-on-one-agenda (One-on-One Meeting Agenda) to run the review points inside regular 1:1s.

## 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).