Managing Low Performers · PIP
Performance Improvement Plan
What is low-performer management?
- Four elements are essential: gap, goals, support, and deadline
- A PIP without a root-cause diagnosis fails
- Without records, the process can’t be defended
What changes most when you introduce a PIP is not the low performer but the manager's position. Judgments that used to pass as 'that person has always been like that' now have to be put in writing, and managers must prove for themselves what they expected and when and in what words they conveyed it. In fact, many PIP drafts are abandoned midway, because writing the expectations down reveals that they were never stated clearly even once. A PIP is a document that assesses the team member and, at the same time, assesses the management record.
In practice, underperformance is split along two axes: willingness and capability. If capability is lacking but willingness is there, training and mentoring are the remedy; if capability is there but willingness has dropped, reassignment or role redesign comes first. When both are low, a conversation about moving the person to a different role should come before a PIP. The period is usually set at 30, 60, or 90 days: 60 days is realistic where performance cycles are short, as in sales, and 90 days where deliverables take time, as in development or planning. A 30-day plan is easily read as a procedure whose outcome was decided in advance. Another point of confusion is the boundary between disciplinary action and a PIP. Attendance or rule violations such as unexcused absence or missed reporting belong to the disciplinary process, while a PIP addresses the quality of work output. Mix the two in one document and both lose their force.
The most common failure is the manager stepping back the moment the employee signs. If the support section says 'mentor assigned' but no mentor is actually in place, or a workload adjustment is promised while the existing work stays as is, then when a dispute arises, the only evidence the company can produce is a single record of missed targets. Setting a goal at double the previous quarter's results is the same problem. A goal with no chance of being met reads as building a case, not offering a chance to improve. And the damage is greater among those who remain than for the person targeted. Team members watch exactly how the PIP subject is treated, and the moment it becomes clear the procedure was a formality, they start calculating who is next.
Yeonmi SongSpecialist instructor and coach in relationship management, resilience, and self-leadership
John KimInstructor John Kim, CEO of Nanum Consulting and author of “B2B Marketing Design”It became standard in U.S. performance management as a way to establish due process before termination. In Korea it was introduced alongside performance appraisal systems, but cases that strayed from its intended purpose have led to ongoing legal disputes.
Let’s walk through a hypothetical case. Company A is a logistics IT firm with 310 employees. Assistant Manager Choi on Sales Team 2 had been stuck in the 50% range of target for three straight quarters, and the team leader asked HR for a PIP, saying 'I can't carry this any longer.' HR designed a 60-day program but decided to identify the cause first before starting.
- The first thing Manager Kim in HR did was reopen the appraisal records. Two of the three missed quarters overlapped with the period when Assistant Manager Choi’s sales territory was changed entirely.
- In the 1:1, the team leader opened by saying they wanted to check the facts before assuming a competence problem. Choi then shared that the handover list of clients in the new territory had still not arrived after four months.
- The 60-day goals were set on leading indicators, not revenue: 5 new meetings a week and a 30% quote conversion rate. In return, the same document stated that the company would first provide CRM data cleanup and 8 joint visits with a senior colleague.
- They checked in five times, for 30 minutes every other Friday, with the team leader keeping records. When meeting numbers fell short of target at the third check-in, the workload was readjusted by taking 12 accounts off Choi's plate.
- After 60 days, Assistant Manager Choi’s attainment rose from 52% to 89% and the PIP was closed. Company A then made a diagnostic conversation mandatory after two consecutive quarters below 70% attainment, cutting PIP launches from 6 a year to 2.