# Performance Improvement Plan: [Employee name], [Job title]

> A manager-side plan for a period of supported improvement when an
> employee's work is below the expected standard: the gap with
> evidence, measurable expectations, the support the employer will
> give, dated reviews and the possible outcomes. Based on common
> employment practice, with the UK Acas Code of Practice on
> disciplinary and grievance procedures (2015) as the fairness
> reference and dated EU and US pointers. Replace every `[bracketed]`
> value and every row marked *Example*. This is a documentation format,
> not legal advice: check the current official text and ask a
> qualified employment adviser before you start a plan.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- A plan is for improvement, not a paper trail for an exit decision
  already made. If the decision is made, the plan will read as a
  pretext and helps no one.
- Before a plan, check the basics: were expectations clear, was
  feedback given, were tools and training in place, could health,
  disability, caring duties or workload explain the gap? Consider
  reasonable adjustments first where relevant.
- Describe behaviour and results, never personality. Every expectation
  needs a measure and a date.
- Follow your own capability or disciplinary procedure
  (`hr/disciplinary-grievance-procedure`) if the plan becomes formal.
- The examples describe Tomas Ridley, a fictional Support Engineer at
  Quillfen Devices Ltd (fictional).
- Related templates: Performance Review (`career/performance-review`),
  One-on-One (`meetings/one-on-one`), Individual Development Plan
  (`career/individual-development-plan`).
-->

## Contents

1. Background and the performance gap
2. Expectations
3. Support from the employer
4. Timeline and reviews
5. Possible outcomes
6. Employee voice and fairness checks
7. Dated legal pointers (October 2026)
8. Signatures
9. Standard and licence note

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: Keep the plan confidential and share it only with the employee, the manager and the People team. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plan ID | [PIP-2026-003] |
| Employee | [Name], [job title], [team] |
| Manager | [@manager] |
| People partner | [@people-partner] |
| Plan type | [Informal support plan / Formal plan under the capability or disciplinary procedure] |
| Start date | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Final review date | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Classification | Confidential |
| Status | [Draft / Active / Extended / Closed: met / Closed: not met] |

### Revision history

| Version | Date | Author | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 *(Example)* | 2026-10-28 | [@manager] | Draft prepared with the People partner |
| 1.0 *(Example)* | 2026-11-02 | [@manager] | Discussed with the employee and issued |

## 1. Background and the performance gap

<!-- Guidance: State the expected standard, what is happening now and the evidence. Questions to answer: when was this first raised, and how? -->

| Area | Expected standard | Current performance | Evidence | First raised |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ticket resolution *(Example)* | 85% of priority 2 tickets resolved within the 2 working-day target | 71% in August to October 2026 | Service desk report, three months | One-to-one, 2026-08-19 |
| Customer updates *(Example)* | Update customer on open tickets at least every working day | 9 tickets with gaps of 3 days or more in October | Ticket audit | One-to-one, 2026-09-16 |
| [Area] | [Standard] | [Current] | [Evidence] | YYYY-MM-DD |

Context considered before starting the plan: [workload, training
received, tools, health or personal circumstances raised by the
employee, adjustments made].

## 2. Expectations

<!-- Guidance: Make each expectation specific, measurable and achievable in the plan period. Use the same measure at every review. -->

| ID | Expectation | Measure | Target by final review |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXP-1 *(Example)* | Resolve priority 2 tickets on time | Share resolved within 2 working days, weekly service desk report | At least 85% over the final two weeks |
| EXP-2 *(Example)* | Keep customers informed | Open tickets with no update for more than 1 working day | Zero in the final two weeks |
| EXP-3 *(Example)* | Escalate blocked tickets early | Tickets escalated after 1 working day without progress | All blocked tickets escalated on time |
| [EXP-N] | [Expectation] | [Measure] | [Target] |

## 3. Support from the employer

<!-- Guidance: The plan must show what the organisation will do, not only what the employee must do. Name the owner and date of each support action. -->

| Support | Owner | When |
|---|---|---|
| Weekly 30-minute review with the manager *(Example)* | [@manager] | Every Monday |
| Pairing with a senior engineer on two complex tickets a week *(Example)* | [@senior-engineer] | Weeks 1 to 4 |
| Training: diagnostic tools course *(Example)* | [@manager] | By week 2 |
| Queue cap of 12 open tickets during the plan *(Example)* | [@team-lead] | Whole plan |
| [Support] | [@owner] | [When] |

## 4. Timeline and reviews

<!-- Guidance: Typical plans run 30 to 90 days. Check whether your procedure, contract or collective agreement sets a period. Hold every review, even when progress is good. -->

*Example:* a six-week plan starting Monday 2026-11-02, with reviews on
Monday 2026-11-16 and Monday 2026-11-30, and a final review on Monday
2026-12-14.

```mermaid
flowchart LR
  A["Plan issued"] --> B["Review 1"]
  B --> C["Review 2"]
  C --> D["Final review"]
  D --> E{"Expectations met?"}
  E -->|"Yes"| F["Plan closed, normal management"]
  E -->|"Partly, clear progress"| G["Extension with new dates"]
  E -->|"No"| H["Next step under the procedure"]
  G --> D
```

| Review | Date | EXP-1 | EXP-2 | EXP-3 | Summary | Employee comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Review 1 *(Example)* | 2026-11-16 | 78% | 2 gaps | On track | Progress on updates, resolution improving | Pairing helpful |
| Review 2 *(Example)* | 2026-11-30 | 84% | 0 gaps | On track | Close to target | Requested one more tools session |
| Final *(Example)* | 2026-12-14 | 87% | 0 gaps | Met | All expectations met | Agreed |
| [Review] | YYYY-MM-DD | [Result] | [Result] | [Result] | [Summary] | [Comments] |

## 5. Possible outcomes

<!-- Guidance: State the outcomes honestly at the start. Do not threaten an outcome your procedure does not allow. -->

- **Met:** the plan closes and normal management resumes. Keep
  feedback going in one-to-ones.
- **Extended:** clear progress but not all targets met; an extension
  of [N weeks] with dates agreed in writing.
- **Not met:** the manager considers the next step under
  [the capability or disciplinary procedure], which may include a
  formal warning or other outcomes set out in that procedure. Any
  formal step includes its own meeting, the right to be accompanied
  where it applies and a right of appeal.

## 6. Employee voice and fairness checks

<!-- Guidance: Give the employee a real chance to respond in writing. Check the plan for bias before you issue it. -->

- [ ] The employee has had the chance to comment on the gap and the
      evidence, and their comments are recorded below.
- [ ] The standard is the same one applied to peers in the same role.
- [ ] Health, disability, pregnancy, caring duties and other personal
      factors raised have been considered, with adjustments where
      reasonable.
- [ ] The plan was not started in response to a complaint,
      whistleblowing report or leave request (check for retaliation
      risk with the People team).
- [ ] The employee knows who to contact in the People team.

Employee comments: [Employee's own words]

## 7. Dated legal pointers (October 2026)

<!-- Guidance: Examples only, not legal advice. Check the current official text and a qualified professional where the person works. -->

| Jurisdiction | Pointer | Official source |
|---|---|---|
| UK | The Acas Code treats poor performance under the disciplinary procedure unless the employer uses a separate capability procedure; the same fairness steps apply. Tribunals may adjust awards by up to 25% for an unreasonable failure to follow the Code. A draft updated Code was consulted on in 2026. | https://www.acas.org.uk/acas-code-of-practice-on-disciplinary-and-grievance-procedures |
| EU | Performance management and dismissal rules are national, often with works council consultation rights. Check national law and collective agreements. | National official sources |
| US | Most employment is at will, but federal anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws enforced by the EEOC, contracts and state law still apply. | https://www.eeoc.gov/ |

## 8. Signatures

<!-- Guidance: The employee signs to confirm receipt, not agreement. Say so on the form. -->

| Role | Name | Signature | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employee (confirms receipt) | [Name] | | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Manager | [Name] | | YYYY-MM-DD |
| People partner | [Name] | | YYYY-MM-DD |

## Standard and licence note

Based on common performance management practice, with the Acas Code of
Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures (2015) and the EEOC
site checked on 2026-10-30 as dated references. Original text written
for this collection; people and organisations are fictional. Not legal
advice: check the current official text and a qualified professional.
Template licence: MIT.