If you've already decided someone needs to leave, don't pretend you're helping them improve.
That's my issue with how performance improvement plans get used. We call it an improvement plan, but the decision has already been made. The employee gets a list of expectations, a deadline, and a conversation about how we're here to support them.
Meanwhile, everyone on the management side is treating the paperwork as a step toward the exit.
That's a problem with the honesty of the process. Changing the name on the form won't fix it.
Decide what you're actually trying to accomplish
If the goal is improvement, the plan needs to give the employee a reasonable opportunity to improve. That means specific expectations, support that addresses the problem, and a manager who is willing to recognize progress.
If the decision is already final, deal with that honestly through the appropriate process. Don't ask someone to spend weeks proving themselves against a decision you have no intention of reconsidering.
And if you haven't figured out why the person is struggling, you aren't ready to write the solution yet.
Find out what's getting in the way
“They're not performing” is the beginning of the conversation.
Were they taught the task? Did anyone verify they could do it independently? Are they working from current information? Do they have the tools and time the assignment requires?
Have two different people given them two different priorities?
You can hold an employee accountable and still ask those questions. In fact, you need those answers to know what you're holding them accountable for.
Take missed deadlines. If a task is due Friday but the information required to start it doesn't arrive until Friday afternoon, telling the employee to improve their time management misses the problem completely.
If everything they need is available and they repeatedly choose not to follow the agreed process, that's a different conversation. The response should fit what is actually happening.
Put commitments on both sides
An improvement plan shouldn't be a list of everything the employee has to do while the manager waits to see whether they fail.
Write down what the employee needs to change. Then write down what the manager will provide.
Maybe that's supervised practice, a clear priority list, access to current instructions, or time with someone who can answer questions. Name the person responsible for providing it and when it will happen.
Make the measures observable. “Communicate better” leaves too much open to interpretation. “Flag a missing input on the task the same day you identify it, including what you need and who can provide it” gives both people something they can check.
Use measures that fit the actual work and are within the employee's control. A target they can only hit if three other departments behave perfectly doesn't tell you much about their performance.
Check in while there's still time to help
Don't hand someone a plan and disappear until the deadline.
Meet regularly. Review actual examples. Ask what support was provided, what changed, and what still isn't working. Write down the progress together so the employee isn't guessing where they stand.
Be clear about the seriousness of the situation, too. Support doesn't require pretending there are no consequences. Someone can understand that their job is at risk and still be treated with respect.
Sometimes the support works. Sometimes the role isn't a fit. Sometimes the employee doesn't make the changes required. An honest process leaves room to find that out.
But if improvement was never an acceptable outcome, stop calling it an improvement plan.
Taylor Ehlmann is an operations leader and ISO 9001:2026 Lead Auditor who writes about building processes and teams that keep getting better. More about Taylor