A PIP the employee can actually act on
Clear objectives, dated checkpoints and an honest outcome. Written so it reads as a route back, not as the paperwork before an exit.
Always time-bound
Start, duration, checkpoints
Never judges adequacy
The manager decides
Defensible trail
Every event dated
Clear outcomes
Met, extended, escalated
The unbroken record
Review → Improvement plan → Mediation, as one case chain
Nothing is retyped and nothing is lost. Each stage carries the last one forward with its dates intact — so the story a tribunal would ask for already exists.
- Stage 1
Review
- 14 JanVoice note logged — client handover
- 02 MarObjective proposed
- 04 MarObjective accepted by employee
- 28 MarReview closed
- Stage 2
Improvement plan
- 01 AprPlan opened from review
- 15 AprCheckpoint 1 — summary written
- 29 AprCheckpoint 2 — partially met
- 13 MayOutcome: escalated
- Stage 3
Mediation
- 16 MayRoom opened, plan carried in
- 18 MayIssues agreed: 2 of 3 green
- 24 MayMemorandum signed
Why most PIPs go wrong
Three failures account for nearly every plan that ends in a claim.
Objectives are vague, so nobody can say afterwards whether they were met.
Each objective states what good looks like, how it is measured, and by when.
Checkpoints slip, and the plan quietly becomes a countdown instead of support.
Checkpoints are scheduled up front, and each one is written up on the plan track.
The tone reads as a threat, the employee disengages, and the dispute starts there.
Wording is nudged toward specifics and support, and never predicts an outcome.
Every row above is recorded and dated, so the record speaks for itself later.
The product
The plan track, and where each objective stands
One spine from start date to end date, checkpoints placed by date, and objectives showing their traffic-light state at a glance.
Plan track
1 Apr 2026 → 27 May 2026
- Checkpoint 115 Apr
- Checkpoint 229 Apr
- Checkpoint 313 May
- Review outcome27 May
Handover notes filed within 24 hours
Measured on 12 client files
Attend the Monday planning stand-up
Weekly, from 8 April
Two peer shadowing sessions completed
Booked with team lead
How it works
Set the objectives
The manager writes what good looks like, how it will be measured, and by when. The employee sees exactly the same plan.
Work the checkpoints
Scheduled check-ins with a written summary each time. Progress is recorded as it happens, not reconstructed at the end.
Close with an outcome
Met, not met, extended, withdrawn, or escalated to mediation. The manager decides — the record shows why.
Guardrails
The AI never judges adequacy
It will not say whether performance is good enough, and it will not predict an outcome. That judgement belongs to the manager.
De-escalating by design
Wording is nudged away from threat and toward specifics: what happened, what is expected, what support is on offer.
Time-bound, always
Every plan has a start, a duration and dated checkpoints. Open-ended plans that drift for months are not possible.
HR oversight built in
HR can see the plan, the checkpoints and the events without having to chase managers for documents.
Included: one-click HR letters
Plan start, checkpoint and outcome letters are drafted from the plan itself — the objectives, the dates and the recorded outcome, nothing more.
- Drafts only — the system never sends anything
- No legal conclusions, no invented facts
- Statutory checklist for accompanied and appeal rights
- Download, check, and self-certify when you send it
When a plan isn't the answer
Sometimes the problem is a relationship, not performance. A plan can be escalated to a mediation room in one step — carrying the plan, not the private manager notes.