The Performance Improvement Plan Is a Charade
Why continuous coaching is the more honest—and effective—way to lead through underperformance
I once had a team member. A real problem.
They were rude to peers and defiant about assigned work. Argumentative with just about everyone, they would run to the CEO when backed into a corner. Their manager wanted to fire them immediately.
HR said: Start with a Performance Improvement Plan.
If you’ve been a manager or above, this story probably sounds familiar. Most of us have had to manage a “bad apple” who behaved like they didn’t want to be there. And yes, the natural response is often to cut our losses and move on.
But a good HR leader will tell you that’s a mistake.
And they’re probably right.
But is the Performance Improvement Plan the right response?
Improvement or Protection?
First, the obvious: you need to ask yourself if you actually want the employee to improve.
Liane Davey, a team effectiveness advisor and author, wrote in Harvard Business Review:
“A performance improvement plan should be used only when you have a plan to improve the person’s performance. If you aren’t willing to support changes or recognize improvements when they happen, implementing a PIP process is unkind (not to mention a waste of time and effort).”
That’s a fair challenge.
But some HR professionals counter: a PIP isn’t about being kind — it’s about covering the company’s legal backside.
California-based attorney Matt Ruggles puts it plainly:
“…the employer issues a PIP to an employee so that the employer has documented evidence that it made a legitimate business reason for the anticipated adverse employment action, which tends to make any subsequent allegation of discrimination or retaliation by the terminated employee look baseless.”
Ask most labor attorneys, though, and they’ll tell you: a PIP is no guarantee the employee won’t sue.
The Cruelty of the Charade
But beyond the legal posturing, there’s a deeper human cost.
Netflix co-founder Marc Randolph argues that the Performance Improvement Plan is, in his words, “cruel and unusual punishment.”
His point? The PIP is performative.
“Since everyone knows what is eventually going to happen, it’s simply cruel to the employee (and a waste of everyone’s time) to continue the charade that the outcome is going to be different this time.”
As I said earlier: there’s no reason to do a PIP if the goal isn’t to keep the employee. Otherwise, as Randolph puts it:
“PIPs are not ‘Performance Improvement Plans.’ They are plans designed to ‘Prove I’m Pathetic.’ And that’s simply cruel.”
So what’s the alternative — something better, and rooted in dignity?
A Better Way: Continuous Coaching
In Forbes, William Arruda, co-founder of CareerBlast.TV, makes the case for what he calls continuous coaching:
“Rather than being disciplinary and oppressive, as PIPs often are, continuous coaching serves to identify, address, and fix an employee’s skill and behavior gaps, while leveraging their strengths.”
Now, I’m a big fan of coaching — but I’ll admit, I hadn’t thought of it in this exact scenario.
“In best-case scenarios, continuous coaching becomes a practical way to open discussions of employee problems before they become too huge to tackle. When employees have routine access to their managers who are skilled coaches, they don’t fear them. Instead, they see them as a pathway to learn, grow, and succeed,” Arruda wrote.
That line stuck with me.
In many organizations, by the time someone says, “This person needs a PIP,” what they really mean is: coaching didn’t work — or never happened at all.
If your culture isn’t built to coach through hard moments — not just up to them — then even the best intentions will collapse under pressure.
It Starts with Clarity
Mary Pat Knight, CEO of Leaders Inspired, puts it this way:
“Most performance issues have their roots in cloudy expectations.”
Her advice to leaders?
Clarify expectations
Unpack the milestones inside those expectations
Agree on the outcomes
Offer support and check in regularly
Celebrate small movements toward success
Stay transparent throughout
“Ultimately, your employee must improve; the desired outcome hasn’t changed,” Knight writes. “But the energy with which you approach the needed improvement is vastly different — and more empowering and uplifting for all.”
That’s the piece we forget.
When I think back to that problem employee, I wonder what might’ve been different. What if, instead of escalating to a PIP, their manager had a framework for continuous coaching?
The outcome might have been the same — a separation — but the path to it would have been more honest, direct, and respectful of everyone’s time.
The “cloudy expectations” Knight talks about? Those were definitely part of the problem.
A coaching culture might not have saved the employee, but it would have better protected the team they were disrupting.
The PIP might protect the organization.
But coaching protects the culture.
Ever had to put someone on a PIP? Or been on the receiving end of one? What worked — and what didn’t? Share your thoughts in the comments or hit reply. Let’s compare notes.
PS - If you found this post helpful, would you please consider restacking it and sharing it with your audience?
This spreads the word and keeps me writing the types of content that you have enjoyed.