Pip Writing

Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) Writing

When to Use

Use this skill when any of the following conditions apply:

• A manager or HR professional needs to formally document an employee's failure to meet established performance standards after prior informal or formal feedback has been given, and a structured improvement period is warranted
• An employee's performance has deteriorated measurably from a previously acceptable baseline -- quantifiable decline in metrics such as output volume, quality scores, error rates, attendance, or deadline adherence
• A manager needs to create a legally defensible record that demonstrates the company acted in good faith before taking adverse employment action, by offering a genuine opportunity to improve with documented support
• A verbal coaching conversation or informal performance warning has failed to produce lasting improvement and the situation must be escalated to formal written documentation
• HR has advised that a situation has reached the threshold requiring formal documentation -- for example, after two written warnings, after a performance review rating below a defined level (e.g., "Does Not Meet Expectations" or equivalent), or as required by a collective bargaining agreement
• An employee's performance gap creates measurable risk to team output, client relationships, regulatory compliance, or operational continuity -- and informal management is no longer sufficient
• A manager is preparing for a potential termination and must demonstrate that the employee received clear notice, genuine support, and a fair opportunity to improve before any adverse action was taken

Do NOT use this skill in the following situations:

• The issue is a one-time behavioral incident, a single missed deadline, or an isolated conflict that belongs in a coaching conversation or incident report -- use conflict-resolution-email or professional-email instead
• The manager wants to give a performance rating or annual review summary -- those belong in a performance review format, not a PIP
• The sole purpose is to communicate rejection to a job candidate -- use rejection-letter
• The manager has already made a final termination decision and is seeking paperwork to justify it retroactively -- a PIP is not a valid termination cover document; refer the user to HR and legal counsel for proper offboarding documentation
• The performance concern is actually a conduct or policy violation (e.g., harassment, theft, insubordination) -- conduct issues require a disciplinary action record or corrective action notice, not a PIP, which is a performance tool
• The employee is still in a probationary period at an organization that handles new-hire underperformance through a separate probationary review process -- check whether the PIP policy applies to probationary employees before proceeding
• The user needs to address attendance issues governed by FMLA, ADA accommodations, or a documented medical condition -- those situations require HR and legal review before any written performance documentation is issued, since attendance tied to protected leave creates significant legal exposure

Process

Step 1: Gather Complete Context Before Writing Anything

Before drafting a single line of the PIP, collect all required inputs. An incomplete PIP is worse than no PIP -- it creates legal risk and signals bad faith. Ask the user explicitly for:

• Employee identifying information: Full legal name, job title, department, manager name and title, HR business partner name (if known), employee start date, and whether the employee is full-time, part-time, or a contractor
• Prior feedback history: Dates and format of all prior feedback (verbal coaching, written warnings, performance review ratings, prior PIPs). A PIP should never be the first written notice the employee receives about a performance issue -- if no prior feedback exists, flag this before proceeding
• The performance standard being violated: The specific, written standard from the job description, team operating agreement, offer letter, prior performance review, or company policy that the employee is failing to meet. This anchor document is critical for legal defensibility
• The gap between standard and actual performance: Specific, dated examples of underperformance. Collect at minimum three documented instances per performance area. Vague allegations do not survive HR review or legal challenge
• The magnitude and duration of the gap: Is this a sudden decline or a chronic pattern? What was the employee's baseline before the decline? When did the gap first become apparent?
• Impact of the underperformance: How has this affected team output, client relationships, revenue, compliance, or other measurable outcomes? Impact language strengthens the business case and helps the employee understand why improvement matters
• PIP duration: Typical ranges are 30, 60, or 90 days. The appropriate duration depends on the complexity of the behavior change required. Simple output metrics (call completion rate) often fit a 30-day cycle. Complex behavioral change (cross-functional collaboration, strategic planning quality) typically requires 60 to 90 days
• Support resources being offered: Training courses, coaching sessions, adjusted workload, mentorship access, tool or system support, peer shadowing opportunities
• Desired outcome: What does success look like at the end of the PIP period? What specific metric or behavior change, observed consistently, would result in PIP closure?

Step 2: Classify and Frame Each Performance Area Correctly

PIPs address performance gaps, not personality flaws, attitudes, or perceived motivation. Every issue must be classified and framed before it is written. Apply the following discipline to each area:

• Classify by type: Output-based gaps (volume, speed, accuracy, revenue, error rate), process-based gaps (following required procedures, documentation standards, reporting requirements), or behavior-based gaps (communication with team members or clients, meeting conduct, deadline management)
• Convert subjective observations into observable facts: "Bad attitude" becomes "In four team meetings observed by the manager between November 12 and December 3, 2025, the employee spoke over other team members an average of three times per meeting, resulting in agenda items being tabled." Every behavioral observation must include a timeframe, a frequency or count, and an observed impact
• Apply the Stranger Test: Could a neutral third party with no context about the employee -- a labor arbitrator, an employment attorney, a jury -- read this description and understand exactly what happened? If not, it is not specific enough
• Use neutral, factual language throughout: Avoid words like "consistently fails," "refuses to," "doesn't care," "ignores," or "cannot." These imply intent and motivation. Use "did not," "was not completed," "did not meet," "was not submitted by"
• Separate co-occurring issues: If an employee has both output problems and conduct problems, determine whether the conduct issue belongs in a separate disciplinary corrective action. Mixing conduct and performance in a single PIP creates confusion about which process governs and what the consequences are
• Identify whether ADA, FMLA, or accommodation concerns are present: If any performance issues overlap with a medical condition, disability, or protected leave, stop and flag this for HR before proceeding. This is a legal tripwire

Step 3: Construct Measurable Improvement Goals

Each goal must be independently verifiable, time-bound, and calibrated to a standard the employee can realistically achieve with the support being provided. Apply the SMART-V framework for PIP goals:

• Specific: The goal names a precise behavior, output, or metric -- not a general improvement category. "Achieve a client satisfaction score of 80 or above across all assigned accounts" is specific. "Improve client satisfaction" is not
• Measurable: The goal includes a numeric threshold, percentage, frequency, or observable binary outcome (submitted / not submitted). Avoid goals that require subjective manager judgment to evaluate -- those create disputes at final review
• Achievable: The target must be one that an employee performing at minimum standard -- not exemplary standard -- can reach. Do not set the PIP goal at the top quartile of the team. Set it at the acceptable baseline for the role
• Relevant: Each goal must connect directly to a documented performance gap. Do not add aspirational stretch goals to a PIP -- this is not a development plan
• Time-bound: Every goal has a deadline. Most goals should have both an interim checkpoint date (typically at the midpoint of the PIP) and a final evaluation date
• Verifiable: The method of measurement must be stated explicitly. Who collects the data? From what system? How is it calculated? A goal that says "improve communication" with no verification method will fail at final review

Set two to four goals per PIP. More than four goals signals a performance profile so broad that the PIP may not be the right tool, or that the manager is piling on rather than focusing on the most critical gaps.

Step 4: Define the Support Structure in Operational Detail

A PIP with vague support ("manager will provide coaching") does not demonstrate good faith. The support section must be specific enough that an outside reviewer could verify whether it was delivered. For each support element, state:

• What it is: Specific training course, tool, resource, or coaching session -- not general categories
• Who delivers it: Named person or function (e.g., "L&D team," "VP of Sales," "IT Help Desk")
• When it is scheduled: Actual dates or a defined cadence (e.g., every Tuesday at 2:00 PM)
• What the employee is expected to do with it: Attend, complete, apply a specific technique, submit a deliverable

Standard support elements to consider and prompt the user for:

• Role-specific skills training (internal or external)
• Reduced scope or workload during the PIP period so improvement is achievable
• Increased manager check-in frequency (weekly or biweekly 1:1s are standard during a PIP; daily check-ins are appropriate only for very short PIPs or acute situations)
• Access to peer mentorship or a more experienced colleague
• Clarification of tools, systems, or processes the employee may not have been adequately trained on
• Written documentation of expectations that were previously communicated only verbally

If the company is unwilling or unable to provide meaningful support, flag this to the user. A PIP without genuine support is legally vulnerable and ethically questionable.

Step 5: Structure the Checkpoint and Evaluation Schedule

A PIP is a living document with structured review points, not a set-and-forget warning notice. Build a checkpoint architecture with three layers:

• Weekly or biweekly check-in meetings: Short (30 minutes), structured conversations between manager and employee to review progress against each goal. The manager should document the outcome of every check-in meeting in a brief written note added to the employee's file -- not in the PIP itself, but in a companion log. Prompt the user to commit to this documentation practice
• Midpoint formal review (at 30 days for a 60- or 90-day PIP, at 15 days for a 30-day PIP): A formal assessment of each goal against current data. The midpoint review should result in one of three outcomes: (1) on track -- continue, (2) making progress but not on track -- adjust support, consider PIP extension, (3) not making progress -- begin HR consultation about next steps
• Final review: A formal evaluation of all goals against the stated metrics. This review must be documented in writing and result in a clear written outcome determination: PIP closed successfully, PIP extended (specify duration and reason), or further action initiated

State the specific dates for each review event in the PIP document itself. "Biweekly" is not a date. "March 14, March 28, April 11" are dates.

Step 6: Write the Consequences Section with Precision

The consequences section is the most legally sensitive part of the PIP. It must be complete, accurate, and neither threatening in tone nor vague about what is at stake. Include all four consequence scenarios:

• Goals fully met: PIP closes. The employee returns to the standard performance management cycle. The PIP remains in the personnel file per company record retention policy (typically two to three years, but confirm with HR). State whether a "successfully completed PIP" notation is added to the file
• Significant partial improvement: At manager and HR discretion, the PIP may be extended for a defined additional period (typically 30 days). Extensions should not be used to delay an inevitable termination -- they should only be granted when genuine progress is documented at the midpoint review
• Minimal or no improvement: Further corrective action, up to and including termination of employment. Do not use euphemisms like "employment may be reconsidered" -- "up to and including termination of employment" is the standard phrasing recognized in employment law
• Regression after PIP closes: Some companies include language addressing what happens if an employee meets PIP goals but then reverts to prior behavior within a defined window (e.g., 90 days). Include this if the user's company has such a policy

Do not include specific timelines for termination ("if goals are not met by April 30, you will be terminated on May 1"). The decision to terminate requires HR and legal review and should not be pre-committed in writing in the PIP.

Step 7: Review for Legal Defensibility and Consistency Before Finalizing

This step is mandatory. Before presenting the completed PIP to the user, run a defensibility check against the following criteria:

• Consistency check: Are the expectations in this PIP the same as those applied to other employees in the same role at the same level? If this employee's peers are allowed to miss 10% of deadlines without a PIP, the PIP standard should not be 0% missed deadlines for this employee
• Prior notice check: Does the PIP reference prior feedback? Can the user document that the employee was informed of these issues before the PIP was issued? If not, the PIP should not be the first formal notice
• Achievability check: Given the timeline and the support being provided, is it genuinely possible for a motivated employee to meet these goals? If a reviewer could conclude that the goals are designed to fail, the PIP is not defensible
• Documentation completeness check: Does every performance gap have specific dated examples? Are all goals measurable with a named verification method? Are all support commitments specific enough to verify?
• Protected class and accommodation check: Are there any characteristics of this employee (age, disability, pregnancy, religious observance, national origin, recent leave usage) that might create an inference of discriminatory motive? This is not a reason to avoid a legitimate PIP, but it is a reason to ensure scrupulous consistency and to involve HR
• Always recommend HR review before delivery. State this explicitly to the user. A PIP delivered without HR review is one of the most common sources of employment litigation exposure

Step 8: Prepare the Delivery Guidance

A well-written PIP delivered poorly can still create harm. Offer the following delivery guidance to the user:

• Schedule a private meeting with the employee, manager, and HR representative (or a second manager as witness) to review the PIP in person or via video call -- never deliver a PIP via email alone
• Allow the employee time to read the document in the meeting before signing -- do not rush signatures
• Explain each section rather than simply asking the employee to sign -- the manager should be able to walk through each performance area, each goal, and each support resource
• Clarify that the signature acknowledges receipt, not agreement. Offer the employee the opportunity to submit a written response within five business days
• Provide a copy to the employee immediately upon signing. File the signed original with HR
• Do not deliver a PIP on a Friday afternoon or the day before a holiday -- this is widely recognized as a bad-faith practice that prevents the employee from accessing support and creates the impression the company is trying to avoid a conversation

Output Format

PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

EMPLOYEE INFORMATION
Employee name:        [Full legal name]
Job title:            [Exact job title per job description]
Department:           [Department name]
Manager:              [Manager full name, title]
HR business partner:  [HR contact name, if applicable]
Employee start date:  [Date]
Date issued:          [Date this PIP is delivered]
PIP period:           [Start date] to [End date] ([Duration: 30 / 60 / 90 days])

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND

This Performance Improvement Plan formally documents areas in which
[Employee Name]'s performance has not met the established expectations
of the [Job Title] role. The purpose of this plan is to provide
[Employee Name] with clear, specific improvement goals, structured
support, and a defined timeline within which to demonstrate sustained
performance improvement.

Prior feedback history:
- [Date]: [Format: verbal coaching / written warning / performance review
  rating] regarding [topic]
- [Date]: [Format] regarding [topic]
- [Additional entries as applicable]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

SECTION 2: PERFORMANCE AREAS REQUIRING IMPROVEMENT

AREA [#]: [Performance Category -- e.g., "Client Call Completion Rate"]

Established standard:
[The specific, written standard from the job description, team policy,
or prior performance agreement. Cite the source of the standard if
possible (e.g., "per the Customer Success Manager role description
dated January 2025").]

Current performance:
[Factual description of what is actually occurring, with aggregate
data where available (e.g., "8 of 20 scheduled calls were missed in
January 2026, a 40% miss rate against a 0% miss standard").]

Documented instances:
- [Date] -- [Specific incident: what was expected, what occurred,
  observable impact]
- [Date] -- [Specific incident]
- [Date] -- [Specific incident]
- [Additional instances as needed; minimum three per area]

Impact:
[How this gap has affected team output, clients, revenue, compliance,
or other measurable outcomes. Neutral, factual language only.]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

SECTION 3: IMPROVEMENT GOALS

| # | Goal Description | Measurement Method | Minimum Target | Interim Checkpoint | Final Deadline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [Specific, observable behavior or output] | [Named data source or verification method] | [Numeric or binary threshold] | [Date] | [Final date] |
| 2 | [Specific, observable behavior or output] | [Named data source or verification method] | [Numeric or binary threshold] | [Date] | [Final date] |
| 3 | [Specific, observable behavior or output] | [Named data source or verification method] | [Numeric or binary threshold] | [Date] | [Final date] |

Note: Goals will be evaluated based on data collected from [named
system or source] by [named person or role]. The employee will have
access to this data throughout the PIP period.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

SECTION 4: SUPPORT AND RESOURCES

The following support will be provided to [Employee Name] during the
PIP period:

| Support Element | Description | Delivered By | Schedule |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Training / Coaching / Mentoring / Workload adjustment] | [Specific description] | [Named person or team] | [Specific dates or cadence] |
| [Support element] | [Description] | [Delivered by] | [Schedule] |
| Manager check-ins | [Format: 30-minute 1:1 via video / in person] | [Manager name] | [Every Monday at X time, or equivalent] |

Workload adjustment during PIP period:
[Specify any reduction in scope, paused responsibilities, or
reassigned accounts that will make improvement achievable. If none,
state "No workload adjustments during this period."]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

SECTION 5: EVALUATION SCHEDULE

| Review Event | Date | Format | Conducted By |
|---|---|---|---|
| Check-in meeting 1 | [Date] | [In person / Video] | [Manager name] |
| Check-in meeting 2 | [Date] | [Format] | [Manager name] |
| Midpoint formal review | [Date] | [Format] | [Manager + HR] |
| Check-in meeting 3 | [Date] | [Format] | [Manager name] |
| Check-in meeting 4 | [Date] | [Format] | [Manager name] |
| Final evaluation | [Date] | [Format] | [Manager + HR] |

At each formal review, the manager will prepare a written summary of
progress against each goal. This summary will be shared with [Employee
Name] and filed with HR.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

SECTION 6: OUTCOMES

The following outcomes apply at the conclusion of the PIP period
based on [Employee Name]'s performance against the goals in Section 3:

GOALS FULLY MET:
This PIP will be closed successfully. [Employee Name] will return
to the standard performance management cycle. A notation of
successful PIP completion will [be / not be] added to the personnel
file per company policy. This PIP document will be retained in the
personnel file for [duration per company policy, typically 2--3 years].

PARTIAL IMPROVEMENT (significant progress, goals not fully reached):
At the joint discretion of [Manager name] and [HR representative],
the PIP may be extended for up to [30] additional days to allow
continued improvement. Extension requires documented evidence of
meaningful progress at the final review date. An extension is not
guaranteed and is not available in cases of minimal or no progress.

GOALS NOT MET OR MINIMAL PROGRESS:
Further corrective action will be initiated, up to and including
termination of employment. Any employment decisions will be made
in consultation with Human Resources and in accordance with
company policy and applicable law.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

SECTION 7: EMPLOYEE RESPONSE

[Employee Name] has the right to submit a written response to this
Performance Improvement Plan within five (5) business days of the
date of receipt. Written responses should be submitted to [HR
contact name and email / department]. A written response will be
attached to this document in the personnel file and does not alter
the terms or timeline of this PIP.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

SECTION 8: ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT

This Performance Improvement Plan has been reviewed with [Employee
Name] in a meeting on [date of delivery meeting]. The signatures
below confirm receipt of this document. Signing this document does
not constitute agreement with the content of the assessment.

Employee signature: _________________________ Date: _________
Print name:         _________________________

Manager signature:  _________________________ Date: _________
Print name / title: _________________________

HR representative:  _________________________ Date: _________
Print name:         _________________________

If [Employee Name] declines to sign this document, that fact will
be noted below and witnessed:

Refused to sign -- witnessed by: _________________ Date: _________

Rules

1. Never describe attitudes, motivation, or personality. The only permissible content in a PIP is observable behavior and measurable output. "Does not seem engaged" and "has a negative attitude" are not valid PIP content. "Did not respond to three client emails within the 4-hour response window on February 3, 7, and 14" is. Any time a user offers a subjective characterization, convert it to a behavioral or output observation or ask for the specific factual basis

2. Every performance gap must have at minimum three specific, dated instances. One example can be dismissed as an anomaly. Two may be coincidental. Three documented instances establish a pattern. For each instance, document: the date, what was expected, what actually occurred, and the observable impact. If the user cannot provide three instances, prompt them to gather documentation before proceeding

3. The standard being violated must be stated before the gap is described. You cannot document a failure to meet a standard that was never stated. The expectation must come first -- "The standard for this role is X" -- before "The actual performance was Y." If the user cannot name the written standard (job description, team policy, prior performance agreement), flag this and recommend establishing that standard in writing before issuing the PIP

4. No goal is valid if a neutral third party cannot determine whether it was met without consulting the manager's opinion. Goals that depend on manager interpretation -- "demonstrates better communication," "shows more initiative," "improves professional presence" -- are not measurable and will not survive a challenge. Every goal must name a data source, a threshold, and a verification method

5. The PIP timeline must be calibrated to the complexity of the required change. 30 days is appropriate for output-based metrics where the employee controls the inputs (call completion rate, report submission rate, error rate). 60 days is appropriate for metrics that depend on system or relationship factors (client satisfaction scores, quality ratings that aggregate over time). 90 days is appropriate for behavioral changes that require building new habits or skills. Never recommend a timeline shorter than 30 days -- this signals intent to fail the employee

6. A PIP without prior feedback history is legally and ethically deficient. If the user cannot document prior verbal or written feedback about the same issues, the appropriate response is not to write the PIP -- it is to advise the user to deliver a formal written warning first, allow a reasonable response period, and then issue the PIP if improvement does not occur. Flag this clearly, do not suppress it to satisfy the user's request

7. Never commingle performance and conduct in a single PIP. Attendance without a medical accommodation issue, punctuality, and failure to follow procedures may be performance issues. Harassment, insubordination, fraud, and policy violations are conduct issues governed by a separate disciplinary process. Mixing them creates procedural confusion and may allow an employee to argue that the wrong process was applied, invalidating the action taken

8. Support must be operationally specific, not aspirational. "Manager will provide support" is not a support commitment. "30-minute weekly 1:1 every Monday at 9:00 AM between employee and manager, with a written agenda provided 24 hours in advance" is a support commitment. Vague support language creates a basis for the employee to argue the company did not act in good faith

9. The acknowledgment section must clarify that signature confirms receipt, not agreement. And it must include a "refused to sign" witness provision. An employee who refuses to sign a PIP does not nullify the PIP -- the refusal is documented and witnessed, and the plan proceeds. Without this clause, some employees believe refusing to sign gives them legal protection, which it does not, but it creates an unnecessary administrative dispute

10. Always recommend HR review before delivery, and state this as a hard requirement, not a suggestion. A PIP delivered without HR sign-off exposes the company to procedural challenges even when the underlying performance issues are legitimate. If the user indicates they cannot involve HR (e.g., very small company with no HR function), recommend they consult an employment attorney or use an HR advisory service before delivering the plan. Document this recommendation in your response

11. Never include specific dates for planned termination in the PIP. Stating "if goals are not met by April 30 you will be terminated on May 1" converts the PIP into a de facto termination notice and removes the good-faith ambiguity that allows for PIP extension, additional review, or changed circumstances. Consequences should be directional ("up to and including termination") not pre-scheduled

12. Ensure all dates are specific and absolute, not relative. "In two weeks" and "at the midpoint" are not dates. Every checkpoint, check-in, and review event must have an actual calendar date in the document. Relative dates shift as circumstances change and create disputes about when reviews were supposed to occur

Edge Cases

The employee disagrees with the facts in the PIP This is common and expected. The PIP acknowledgment section should explicitly state that signature confirms receipt, not agreement, and should offer the employee five business days to submit a written rebuttal. A written rebuttal should be attached to the PIP in the personnel file -- this actually strengthens the legal record because it demonstrates the company followed due process. Do not revise factual content of the PIP in response to employee disagreement unless the manager identifies a factual error (wrong date, wrong metric). If the manager wants to accommodate the employee's objection by softening the PIP language, flag that this will weaken the document's defensibility and should involve HR before any revisions are made.

The performance issues overlap with a disability, medical condition, or protected leave This is the highest-risk scenario in PIP drafting. If any of the following are true, stop and recommend HR and legal review before proceeding: the employee has disclosed a medical condition or disability, the performance issues are primarily attendance-related, the employee has recently used FMLA or medical leave, or the employee has requested an accommodation that has not been formally evaluated. In these cases, the company may have an obligation to engage in an interactive accommodation process before -- or instead of -- issuing a PIP. Issuing a PIP to an employee with a disability-related performance issue without first evaluating accommodation options is one of the most common sources of ADA discrimination claims. Do not draft the PIP until the user can confirm that accommodation obligations have been evaluated.

This is a second PIP for the same employee A second PIP requires a different structure and more stringent standards. Reference the prior PIP explicitly: state the dates of the prior PIP, the goals that were set, whether those goals were met, and when the PIP was closed. Document what has changed since the prior PIP -- either the same issues have re-emerged, or the employee met prior goals but failed to sustain the improvement. Second PIPs typically have shorter timelines (often 30 days rather than 60 or 90) and tighter metric thresholds, because the employee has already had a full improvement opportunity. Recommend that the user involve HR immediately, because a second PIP almost always signals an employment relationship that is approaching termination. In some organizations, company policy prohibits a third PIP -- confirm this with HR.

The performance gap is in a role where output is inherently difficult to quantify Some roles -- strategic planners, researchers, creative directors, senior advisors -- produce work that is harder to measure with simple metrics. In these cases, use proxy metrics (number of projects delivered on schedule, stakeholder satisfaction scores, documented feedback from cross-functional partners, number of revised deliverables required per project) rather than eliminating measurement. An additional valid approach is behavioral observation tied to role-specific competencies: "Prepared and presented three strategic recommendations to executive leadership during Q4; all three required significant revision per VP feedback documented on [dates]." Never allow a PIP to contain immeasurable goals simply because the role is complex -- this is a drafting failure, not a role characteristic.

The manager and employee have a strained or adversarial relationship If the employee is likely to view the PIP as retaliatory or discriminatory based on the existing relationship, the structure of oversight and delivery must be adjusted. Recommend that HR take a more active role in the PIP administration -- including conducting check-in meetings jointly or separately reviewing the employee's progress assessments. Document whether the employee has previously raised complaints about the manager (HR should already know this). Consider whether a neutral second manager or senior HR leader should be named as the primary PIP administrator. A PIP administered solely by a manager who has a documented adversarial relationship with the employee is a retaliation liability.

The employee is a remote or distributed worker Remote employees present specific documentation challenges. All check-in meetings should be conducted via video call, not phone, to preserve a contemporaneous record. Behavioral observations must be based on documented outputs (submitted work products, email and messaging logs, deliverable timestamps) rather than in-person observation. Avoid any metric that presumes physical presence -- "on time to meetings" is valid only if all meetings are documented with a start time and a digital attendance record. Confirm that the employee has been given the same tools, systems access, and communication opportunities as comparable in-office employees before including any metric that depends on tool usage or system availability.

The manager has already informally promised the employee there will be no PIP This happens. A manager who has coached an employee informally, expressed optimism, and then found performance did not improve may have made statements -- in email or in conversation -- that create an expectation of continued informal management. Review what was communicated. If the manager made no written commitment, the PIP can proceed -- but delivery should directly acknowledge the change in approach: "I want to explain why we are moving to formal documentation after our previous conversations." If the manager made a written commitment ("I won't put this in writing as long as you improve"), HR and legal should review before the PIP is issued, because that statement may complicate the legal record.

The user wants a PIP that is actually a termination setup This occurs when a manager has already decided to terminate an employee and views the PIP as a procedural checkbox. Indicators include: goals that are objectively impossible in the given timeframe, no genuine support being offered, a timeline that does not match the complexity of the change required, or the user stating explicitly that they expect the employee to fail. This is ethically and legally problematic. A bad-faith PIP -- one designed to produce a predetermined failure -- is discoverable in litigation and creates significant liability. If these signals are present, advise the user directly: if the decision to terminate has already been made, the appropriate path is to consult HR about a direct termination with proper severance and documentation, not to construct an improvement plan intended to fail. Do not draft the PIP if the user confirms bad-faith intent.

Example

Input: "I need a PIP for Jordan Patel, a Senior Account Executive on my sales team. Jordan's close rate has dropped from 28% to 14% over the last three months. She's also missing CRM updates -- deals are sitting in the pipeline for 30+ days without any activity logged. I've talked to her twice about this, once in November and once in December. The team average close rate is 24%. I want to do a 60-day PIP."

Output:

PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

EMPLOYEE INFORMATION
Employee name:        Jordan Patel
Job title:            Senior Account Executive
Department:           Sales
Manager:              [Manager full name, title -- confirm with user]
HR business partner:  [To be confirmed -- HR review required before delivery]
Employee start date:  [To be confirmed with user]
Date issued:          February 26, 2026
PIP period:           March 1, 2026 to April 30, 2026 (60 days)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND

This Performance Improvement Plan formally documents areas in which
Jordan Patel's performance has not met the established expectations
of the Senior Account Executive role. The purpose of this plan is
to provide Jordan Patel with clear, specific improvement goals,
structured support, and a defined 60-day timeline within which to
demonstrate sustained performance improvement.

Prior feedback history:
- November [date TBD]: Verbal coaching with [Manager name] regarding
  declining close rate and insufficient CRM pipeline activity.
- December [date TBD]: Verbal coaching with [Manager name] regarding
  the same issues. [Manager: please confirm the specific dates of
  these conversations before this document is finalized.]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

SECTION 2: PERFORMANCE AREAS REQUIRING IMPROVEMENT

AREA 1: Opportunity Close Rate

Established standard:
Senior Account Executives are expected to maintain a minimum close
rate of 22% on qualified opportunities, consistent with the team
floor rate for this role. The current team average close rate is
24%. This expectation is documented in the Senior Account Executive
role description and has been part of quarterly performance reviews.

Current performance:
Jordan Patel's close rate has declined from 28% (Q3 2025) to 14%
(Q4 2025 through February 2026) -- a decline of 14 percentage points
representing a 50% reduction from the prior baseline and 8 percentage
points below the team minimum standard.

Documented instances (Q4 2025):
- October 2025: [X] of [Y] qualified opportunities closed -- [Z]%
  close rate [confirm specific numbers from CRM with manager]
- November 2025: [X] of [Y] qualified opportunities closed -- [Z]%
  close rate
- December 2025: [X] of [Y] qualified opportunities closed -- [Z]%
  close rate
- January 2026 (if available): [X] of [Y] qualified opportunities
  closed -- [Z]% close rate

[Note to manager: Please provide the specific monthly opportunity
counts and close rates from your CRM system for each month listed
above before delivering this document. Generic percentages without
deal-level backup are not sufficient for a defensible PIP.]

Impact:
The decline in close rate has resulted in an estimated [revenue
impact -- calculate from average deal size x missed close rate
differential x number of opportunities] in foregone closed revenue
during Q4 2025. [Manager: quantify revenue impact if possible.
Revenue impact language significantly strengthens the business case.]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

AREA 2: CRM Pipeline Activity and Accuracy

Established standard:
Senior Account Executives are required to log all meaningful client
and prospect interactions (calls, emails, meetings, next steps) in
the CRM system within 24 hours of the activity. Open opportunities
must have an activity log entry at minimum every 14 days or a
documented close date within 14 days. Opportunities inactive for
more than 30 days without a documented reason must be escalated or
closed as lost per the Sales Operations process established in the
Q3 2024 Sa

…(truncated)