Performance Theater

You scan the document one last time while waiting for Ted to join your Zoom call (Ted is, unsurprisingly, late). You're proud of the work you put into it. You've laid out the metrics, timelines, and expectations with meticulous precision. The documentation is flawless, your talking points are ready, and the next steps are crystal clear.

Despite all this preparation, you already know the hard truth: this corporate ritual you're about to perform will never achieve its stated purpose.

I'm talking, of course, about the performance improvement plan—PIP for short, and career eulogy for many. I've spent more than two decades in HR and I've seen hundreds of them. The success rate? I'd wager less than 10%.

Let's dig into why these plans almost always fail to do anything.

The Motivation Myth

PIPs rest on the flawed assumption that people will magically improve once you document their shortcomings and threaten their job security. But anyone with a basic understanding of human psychology knows that fear and bureaucracy rarely drive positive change.

The reality is that poor performance usually stems from deeper issues. Sometimes it's a misalignment between the employee's skills and the role's requirements. Other times it's unclear expectations that should have been addressed months ago. Or maybe—and this is more common than we'd like to admit—the employee is actually performing exactly as we've incentivized them to perform, just not how we claim we want them to perform.

Real performance improvement comes from clear purpose, meaningful work, and the right mix of autonomy and support—none of which can be manufactured through a documented warning process.

The Resource Drain

There's also the issue of bandwidth.

A proper PIP requires intensive monitoring, regular feedback sessions, and documented progress updates. Most managers simply don't have the capacity to execute this effectively, especially while managing their other direct reports and their own workload.

This results in cursory check-ins that feel like box-ticking exercises rather than meaningful development conversations. And when managers are stretched too thin to provide proper support, it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy—virtually guaranteeing the PIP's failure.

Too Little, Too Late

By the time most managers implement a PIP, they've already spent months informally trying to correct the situation. The formal plan represents a last resort, not a first intervention.

This means both parties enter the process with emotional baggage and diminished trust. The employee sees it as a precursor to termination (which it usually is), while the manager views it as protection against wrongful termination claims (which it usually isn't).

In this environment of mutual skepticism, meaningful improvement becomes nearly impossible. The documentation merely formalizes what both parties already suspect: this working relationship is probably over.

The False Binary

But perhaps the biggest flaw in PIPs is their binary nature. They create an artificial framework where complex human performance issues are reduced to "pass/fail" metrics. This ignores the nuanced reality of professional work, where success often depends on soft skills, relationship building, and cultural fit—elements that resist quantification.

Consider two sales reps. The first is missing their numbers but building key relationships that will pay off in the future. The second is hitting every target while burning bridges left and right. Which one is really failing?

PIPs force us to oversimplify these nuanced situations, trying to reduce complex performance patterns into simple checkboxes and metrics. The real world rarely fits into such neat categories.

What Actually Works

Okay, we’ve established PIPs are a charade, but Ted’s performance issues are very real.

So what’s the alternative?

Start by building feedback into your team's daily rhythm. Regular one-on-ones, real-time coaching, and immediate course corrections should be as natural as checking email. When issues arise, address them directly and specifically—don't let them fester until they require formal documentation.

When performance issues persist despite ongoing feedback and support, make the tough decisions faster. Prolonging the inevitable with a PIP serves neither party. It's kinder—and more profitable—to help them transition to a role or organization where they're more likely to succeed.

And most importantly, get better at hiring. The best way to avoid performance problems is to select people who align with your company’s values and capabilities from the start. (I know, easier said than done and a topic for another day.)

These approaches won't eliminate performance issues entirely, but they'll help you address them honestly and effectively.

The next time you're tempted to draft a PIP, ask yourself whether you're focused on improvement or just creating a paper trail. If it's the latter, you've already made your decision.

The rest is just expensive theater.