PIP Writer

A Performance Improvement Plan fails when it's vague ("improve communication"), unfair (goals no one could hit), or a paper trail dressed as help. This writes the version that is genuinely fair and defensible: concrete concerns tied to examples, goals with measurable success criteria, the support the company will provide, and honest stakes — so the outcome is either a real turnaround or a decision no one can call arbitrary.

> Not legal advice. Employment law varies by jurisdiction and contract — have HR/counsel review before delivery.

What This Skill Produces

• The concern statement — what's below bar, tied to specific, dated examples (not personality)
• The goals — 2–4, each with a measurable success criterion and how it's evidenced
• The support plan — what the manager/company will do (coaching, resources, time)
• The cadence — check-in schedule and what each reviews
• The stakes & timeline — the plan length, the review points, and the honest consequence of not meeting bar

Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:

• The role & bar — what "meeting expectations" looks like for this level
• The specific gaps — concrete instances, with dates where possible (an audit trail beats adjectives)
• What's already been tried — prior feedback, informal or documented
• Timeline — 30 / 60 / 90 days, and any policy constraints
• The goal — genuine turnaround vs. documented exit; the plan is honest either way, but the framing differs

Framework: A Fair, Defensible PIP

1. Behaviour, not character. Every concern is an observable action or output, with an example — never "attitude."
2. Measurable or it's not a goal. "Respond to customer tickets within SLA on 95% of tickets," not "be more responsive."
3. Support is real. If the plan asks for change, it names what help comes with it — else it's a setup.
4. The bar is achievable. A goal no one at level could hit is evidence of bad faith, not underperformance.
5. Consequences stated plainly. The employee should never be surprised by the outcome.

Output Format

Performance Improvement Plan — name], role]

Period: start]–end] · Manager: x] · HR partner: x]

Areas of concern

| Concern | Specific example(s) | Expected standard | |---|---|---|

Improvement goals

| Goal | Measurable success criterion | Evidence | By | |---|---|---|---|

Support provided

• coaching / training / resources / adjusted workload]

Check-ins

• cadence]; each reviews progress vs. criteria]

Outcome

• If goals are met by date]: result]. If not: honest consequence].
• Acknowledgement (signature ≠ agreement, just receipt): ______

Quality Checks

• ] Every concern has at least one specific, dated example — no character judgments
• ] Every goal has a number or a binary, verifiable criterion
• ] The support plan names concrete help, not just expectations
• ] The timeline and consequences are stated explicitly
• ] A reasonable person at this level could hit these goals with the support offered
• ] Flagged for HR/legal review before delivery

Anti-Patterns

• Vague concerns ("communication," "ownership") with no example — unactionable and indefensible.
• Goals with no measure — "improve quality" can't be passed or failed.
• A plan with stakes but no support — reads as manufactured, not corrective.
• Surprise consequences — the outcome must be foreseeable from day one.
• Documenting an exit while claiming turnaround — be honest internally about which this is.

Example Trigger Phrases

• "Write a PIP for an engineer missing delivery commitments."
• "Put together a 60-day performance improvement plan."
• "Help me document underperformance fairly before I talk to HR."
• "Draft a formal improvement plan with measurable goals and support."