Managing Underperformance and Improvement Plans

Scenario

Example organisation: an engineer has struggled for six months. Two team leads raised concerns; the previous manager gave mild feedback and a "meets expectations" rating. The new manager wants to start a formal performance improvement plan (PIP) immediately.

What you see on the team

• Long-standing performance issues never clearly addressed.
• Documentation that contradicts the problem (past "meets" ratings).
• Teammates carrying extra load and losing trust in management.
• Formal processes started abruptly, feeling like a surprise exit route.

The common mistake

Either avoiding the problem for months or jumping to a formal plan without clear expectations, support and documentation — both are unfair to the person and the team.

Why it happens

Performance conversations are uncomfortable, so they're delayed. When patience runs out, managers want a fast resolution. Formal processes then fail — legally and ethically — because expectations were never clear and support was never offered.

The playbook

This is general practice, not legal advice. Always involve HR and follow your company's policy and local employment law; requirements differ by country (for example, the UK government's guidance on fair reasons for dismissal).

1. Clarify and diagnose (weeks). Specific feedback with examples; understand causes (expectations, skills, fit, personal circumstances); adjust work or support where appropriate.

2. Informal improvement plan (4–8 weeks). Written expectations, support (pairing, mentor, training), weekly check-ins with notes.

3. Formal plan if needed (with HR): measurable expectations, a defined period, support, regular documented reviews, and clear consequences — designed so the person can genuinely succeed.

Improvement plan - expectations (example, 6 weeks)
- Deliver assigned tickets within the sprint, flagging risks at standup (>= 80% of planned items)
- PRs ready for review in <= 2 rounds; includes tests
- Weekly check-in every Friday with written notes shared after
Support: pairing with a senior engineer twice a week; scope limited to one service

4. Close the loop: either success (recognise it clearly) or an outcome per policy, handled with dignity.

Throughout: keep it private, factual and respectful; protect the team from gossip.

What to say

Starting the informal plan:

"I want to be clear because I think it's fair to you: your work over the last months hasn't met what's expected at your level — here are the specific examples. I want to help you succeed. Here's what good looks like for the next six weeks, and here's the support I'll put in place. We'll check in every Friday."

Trade-offs

• Supportive steps first take time; they're fair and often work.
• Documentation feels bureaucratic; it protects both the person and the company and keeps expectations clear.
• Past ratings that contradict the issue complicate things; reset expectations explicitly now.

Signals it's working

• Performance issues are raised within weeks, not months.
• People on plans know exactly what's expected and get real support.
• Many plans end in improvement; the rest end fairly and respectfully.
• The team sees problems addressed without gossip.

Key points

• Involve HR and follow policy and local law; this is general practice, not legal advice.
• Clarify, diagnose and support before any formal step.
• Written, measurable expectations, real support and documented weekly check-ins.
• Keep it private and respectful; recognise success clearly.