Build a performance improvement plan with clear goals, documented support, public sector safeguards, and a copy-ready template.
Article Highlights
A performance improvement plan (PIP) is a formal, written process that identifies an employee’s performance gap, defines acceptable performance, sets measurable expectations and a reasonable timeline, and documents the support and possible outcomes involved. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) 2025 quick guide describes a federal PIP as both corrective and developmental.
For public sector employers, a PIP also records the standard, support provided, employee response, and steps required by policy or agreement. Compliance and compassion are not competing goals.
Many employees hear “PIP” and assume the decision has already been made. When formal action follows months of silence or vague feedback, they feel blindsided. A fair employee performance improvement plan makes improvement the objective and defines what the employee and supervisor must each contribute.
In episode seven of the Public Voices by NEOGOV podcast, public sector HR expert Nicole Carlson, draws on her 20 years of experience in local government, chatting alongside Doug Shoemaker, a retired police chief with more than three decades of law enforcement experience. They explore this negative reputation around PIPs, where it stems from, and how to reframe performance improvement plans to foster improvement, trust, and long-term employee development.
A PIP should not be a punishment—but many employees experience it that way when it arrives as a final warning instead of the next step in ongoing coaching.
Episode host Nicole shares that she only saw one PIP administered successfully in her career. This personal insight shows how difficult it is for a plan to feel credible when it is delivered as paperwork before termination rather than as a genuine offer of help.
The problem usually begins earlier. Managers may avoid a concern, hope it corrects itself, or save every issue for annual employee performance evaluations while the employee assumes the work is on track.
Strong public sector performance management and employee accountability in local government begin with routine coaching conversations. A PIP should sit on the same continuum as one-on-ones, goal tracking, and formal reviews. Its documentation trail should begin with those conversations, not with the PIP form.
Focused one-on-ones can address four questions:
A short agenda keeps meetings useful, and rescheduling canceled meetings protects trust. Even one or two hours each month is a small share of a leader’s time. Routine feedback lets the supervisor say honestly, “We have been working on this together.”
Brief notes create continuity. Record the concern, feedback, employee response, support offered, and next step. The goal is to document real coaching, not reconstruct months of history after the situation escalates.
A formal PIP should be used when an employee is not meeting a documented, job-related standard, expectations have been communicated clearly, and routine coaching has not produced sustained improvement.
Before proceeding, ask whether the standard was clear, specific examples were discussed, needed training or tools were provided, and follow-up occurred. Public agencies use different processes, so confirm with HR or labor relations that a PIP is the appropriate next step. It should not be the employee’s first honest performance conversation.
A successful PIP is a shared responsibility. The employee must reflect, engage, and improve performance. The supervisor must set clear expectations, provide meaningful assistance, offer regular feedback, and follow through.
Nicole put it plainly: “If you are not willing to put in the work on both sides, don’t do a PIP.” HR or labor relations may help the agency follow its requirements, but they cannot replace active supervision.
The episode’s success story shows the difference. A supervisor offered regular guidance and submitted monthly updates covering progress, support, and next steps. Those updates held the supervisor accountable and gave everyone a shared record.
At first, the employee believed the agency was trying to fire her. Over time, she saw that her leaders were invested in her improvement. She later shared what she had learned with her leaders and recognized both her team’s support and her own effort. The document did not create that result by itself—the people involved did.
In a performance improvement plan, a manager should include the established standard, examples of the gap, measurable expectations, a compliant timeline, agency support, scheduled check-ins, the employee’s opportunity to respond, and clear possible outcomes.
A useful performance improvement plan template should reflect the employee’s job and the agency’s requirements. Here is what the seven elements included entail:
Together, these elements define the employee’s responsibilities, document the agency’s support, and establish how progress will be reviewed. SHRM’s steps to effective employee performance improvement plans similarly emphasizes specific deficiencies, clear success criteria, assistance, regular feedback, documentation, and defined outcomes.
Start with this performance improvement plan template as a drafting framework. Replace each bracketed prompt, then confirm the final document with HR or labor relations.
Use the template for consistency, not copy-and-paste management. Tailor it to the employee’s work and support needs.
Public employers operate within layers of policy and employee protections. Before issuing a plan, involve HR and, when appropriate, labor relations or counsel.
Before the plan begins, confirm:
Federal guidance does not govern every state or local employer, but OPM’s guide offers useful principles: identify specific deficiencies, set clear expectations, provide meaningful support and regular feedback, document the process, and define the outcome. Public agencies should apply those principles within their own requirements.
The plan’s standards should align with employee performance evaluations and with how comparable situations have been addressed. Effective public sector performance management balances development, accountability, employee rights, and reliable service.
A manager should deliver the conversation directly, calmly, and with empathy. The employee should leave understanding the concern, required improvement, support available, and next steps.
Feeling nervous does not mean a manager is unprepared to lead. Experience handling operational conflict does not automatically prepare someone to discuss an employee’s livelihood and performance.
Podcast co-host and retired Police Chief, Doug Shoemaker, recalled that he would rather spend hours in a hostage negotiation than initiate some internal personnel conversations. Public safety professionals train for external crises, while many supervisors get far fewer chances to rehearse internal ones.
Ahead of these important conversations, prepare four points:
Drafting those points and role-playing possible reactions can help a manager stay focused. The episode also challenges the “compliment sandwich”—offering a compliment, then a critique, then another compliment—which can blur the corrective message. Recognize good work when deserved, and address performance concerns directly.
An emotional response is understandable. This is the person’s livelihood and professional identity. Allow employees time to process the information and schedule a prompt follow-up when appropriate. Empathy should shape the delivery, not erase the message.
And remember: afterward, document what was reviewed, the employee’s response, the assistance discussed, and the next check-in.
Successful PIP completion means the employee meets the documented standard and can sustain that performance without formal monitoring. Strong performance improvement plan goals measure sustained capability, not one unusually strong week. At closeout:
When an employee performance improvement plan succeeds, everyone wins. The agency retains experience, institutional knowledge, coworker relationships, and community connections; the employee gains confidence; and the supervisor becomes better equipped to address concerns early.
Not every PIP will end in improvement. If the employee does not meet the documented standard, record the outcome and follow the agency’s established process. The process is more credible when expectations, assistance, feedback, and the final decision were clear.
The full episode of Public Voices by NEOGOV, “What If a PIP Wasn’t a Punishment? Rethinking Performance Improvement Plans”, goes deeper into substantive one-on-ones, public safety leadership and internal conflict, role-playing difficult conversations, and the real PIP experience that succeeded.
Tune in wherever you get your podcasts to hear the context behind Nicole’s and Doug’s observations, what the successful supervisor did differently, and how public sector and public safety leaders can build confidence before their next difficult performance conversation.
🎥 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@NEOGOVTV/podcasts
🎙️ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0XkpuFAcQudgA8ApV4EsDR
🎧Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/public-voices-by-neogov/id1896768980