How to Run a Performance Improvement Plan That Actually Improves Performance
September 4, 2026 · Uncategorized · 9 min read
Most performance improvement plans exist to document a decision that has already been made, not to genuinely improve anything. Everyone involved usually senses this, which is exactly why they fail: the employee treats it as a formality on the way out, the manager writes it defensively rather than helpfully, and HR reviews it for legal coverage rather than for whether it will actually work. Research on performance management consistently finds that formal improvement processes succeed at changing behaviour in a minority of cases, and the difference between those that work and those that don’t traces almost entirely to how the plan was built, not to how capable the employee was. A PIP built to genuinely improve performance looks different at almost every step, and this guide covers how, with a worked example throughout.
Before you write anything: diagnose the actual cause
A PIP addresses one specific type of problem, and it’s worth being honest about whether that’s what you actually have. Underperformance generally traces to one of four causes: the person lacks the capability to do the work at the required standard, the expectations were never made genuinely clear in the first place, motivation has dropped for a reason worth understanding before assuming laziness, or something outside work, health, family, financial stress, is affecting their capacity right now in a way that’s temporary rather than a reflection of their ability.
Only the first two are reliably fixed by a formal improvement plan. If the real issue is motivation, a PIP addressed to a skills gap that doesn’t exist will fail regardless of how well it’s written, because it’s solving the wrong problem. If the issue is circumstantial, a rigid 30-day plan can do real harm to someone going through something temporary, and will likely feel punitive rather than supportive, which tends to accelerate the departure of someone who might otherwise have recovered fully with a different kind of support.
Worked example: a mid-sized logistics company in Amman
Situation A operations coordinator, two years into the role, has started missing shipment documentation deadlines. Her manager’s instinct is to write her up. Before doing that, he has one direct conversation and learns two things: a new customs portal was rolled out six weeks ago with no formal training, and two other coordinators are quietly making the same errors but haven’t been caught yet.
What this changes This isn’t a capability or motivation problem specific to one person. It’s a training gap the organisation created. A PIP aimed at her individually would have been the wrong tool entirely, and would likely have damaged a two-year working relationship over a system failure that wasn’t hers. The actual fix was two hours of structured training for the whole team and a documented reference guide, not a performance plan.
This example will continue through the guide below, adapted for a case where a genuine, individual performance gap does exist and a plan is the right tool.
The sequence that actually works
Have the informal conversation first
A PIP should never be the first time someone hears there’s a problem. If it is, something upstream already failed, most often regular feedback that wasn’t happening. Give at least one clear, direct, informal conversation with a real chance to improve before any formal process starts. This conversation is also where you do the diagnostic work above: is this capability, clarity, motivation, or circumstance. Skipping straight to paperwork skips the one conversation most likely to reveal which of the four you’re actually dealing with.
Define the gap in specific, observable terms
“Needs to improve communication” is not actionable. “Client update emails should go out within 24 hours of a status change, and three of the last five went out after 4 days” is. Every performance gap in the plan should be something you could point to evidence for, not an impression. If you genuinely cannot state the gap in observable terms, that’s often a sign the problem is less clear-cut than it felt, and worth another round of the diagnostic conversation before writing anything formal.
Set a small number of specific, measurable goals
Three to five goals maximum. Each needs a clear target and a way to know objectively whether it was met. Vague goals produce vague outcomes and, eventually, disputes about whether the plan was actually satisfied. A goal like “improve documentation accuracy” should become something closer to “zero missed customs documentation deadlines over the next 30 days, verified against the shipment log,” which leaves no room for disagreement later about whether it happened.
Attach real support, not just expectations
A plan that lists targets with no support attached reads as a formality, and often is one. Name specifically what help is available: training, mentoring, adjusted workload, more frequent check-ins, access to a colleague who’s strong in the gap area. This is also the step that most distinguishes a genuine improvement plan from a documented exit, and the one employees notice its absence from fastest.
Worked example continued
A genuine individual gap Suppose, after the diagnostic conversation, it becomes clear that one coordinator specifically is struggling with the new system in a way her colleagues aren’t, perhaps because she’s covering two roles temporarily. The gap: three specific documentation deadlines missed in five weeks. The goal: zero missed deadlines over the next 30 days, tracked against the shipment log. The support: two structured coaching sessions with the colleague who’s fastest on the new portal, and a temporary reduction in her secondary workload so she has capacity to actually apply what she learns.
Set a realistic timeframe with scheduled check-ins
Thirty, sixty or ninety days depending on the complexity of the gap. Weekly or biweekly check-ins during that period, not just a single meeting at the end. The employee should never be surprised by how the final review goes, because they should already know from the last check-in roughly where things stand.
Document consistently and neutrally throughout
Record what was discussed, what was agreed, and what actually happened at each check-in, in behavioural language rather than characterisation. “Missed the Tuesday deadline for the Hamdan shipment” is documentation. “Doesn’t seem to care about deadlines” is characterisation, and it weakens the record if the outcome is ever contested, because it reads as judgement rather than evidence.
Follow through on the actual outcome
If the goals are met, say so clearly and move on entirely, don’t let the plan linger as an implicit probation that colours how you treat the person for months afterward. If they aren’t met, the next step should already be understood by both sides from step 3, so nothing at this stage is a surprise, and the conversation is about executing a known consequence rather than negotiating a new one under pressure.
Where PIPs typically go wrong
A note on regional context
Across GCC and African jurisdictions, the legal requirements around documented performance processes before termination vary meaningfully, and getting this step wrong can create real exposure. A properly run PIP, documented consistently and offered in good faith, is also usually a practical requirement before a performance-based termination will hold up if challenged, separate from whether the plan succeeds at improving performance. This matters particularly where end-of-service calculations and termination grounds are tightly defined in law, since a poorly documented or clearly punitive PIP can undermine an otherwise valid termination later. Verify current local requirements rather than assuming they match wherever you learned HR practice originally.
A usable structure to build from
- Performance gap, stated in observable, evidenced terms
- 2–3 specific, measurable goals with a clear method of verification
- Named support: training, mentoring, workload adjustment, or access to a colleague
- Timeframe: 30, 60, or 90 days, matched to the complexity of the gap
- Check-in schedule: weekly or biweekly, each one documented briefly
- Clearly stated consequence if goals are not met, agreed before the plan starts, not decided afterward
Practice the conversation, not just the paperwork
The template matters less than the conversation itself. The Performance Management Training Course is built around heavy practice on exactly this: opening the difficult conversation early, handling defensiveness without retreating, and building a plan that’s genuinely developmental rather than a documented exit.
Need In-House Training?
We run all our courses as private programmes for organisations across the GCC and Africa.
Request In-House →