Performance Improvement Plan

[Mali Singh]

#97352

Forum: Private

(ON) based organization.

With regards to a PIP, recognizing best practice is to have it follow a performance appraisal. However, if this doesn’t work (if performance became worse many months following a PA, can it still be implemented?

As well, say someone received a salary increase as a result of the PA. Are we still in a position to implement a PIP or does because they were given a raise, it raises suspicion on the timing of the PIP?

As well, the employee has been talked to several times about mismanagement on the file they are working on. A PIP needs to follow but is it better to wait a few months, till the project they are working on is complete to discuss how it was handled or better to bring it up now as these issues are coming up?

If the employee indicates they are having performance concerns due to personal issues (family, children related etc.) how does that affect the nature of the PIP? Can we still proceed with putting them on one or does it depend on if accommodations are asked for?

[Haley O’Halloran]

#97353

These are great and nuanced HR questions! Let’s address them one by one in the context of Ontario employment law and best HR practices.

Implementing a PIP After a Performance Appraisal

While it’s best practice to introduce a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) soon after a performance review that identifies deficiencies, you can still implement a PIP later if performance has declined after the appraisal. The key is to ensure that:

You have clear, recent documentation of the performance issues.

You can demonstrate that these concerns are new or escalating since the last performance appraisal.

The timing of the PIP is linked to observable performance issues, not arbitrary.

Employers often need to implement a PIP mid-cycle when performance deteriorates. Just ensure that it doesn’t appear retaliatory or inconsistent with prior documentation.

Implementing a PIP After a Salary Increase

A salary increase following a performance review doesn’t prevent you from issuing a PIP later. However, optics matter:

A raise signals satisfactory performance at that time.

If you introduce a PIP shortly afterward, it could raise questions about fairness or timing.

To mitigate that risk:

Clearly show that the performance problems arose or worsened after the raise.

Document specific incidents or quality issues with dates.

In communications, frame the PIP as a supportive step to help the employee regain prior performance levels.

So yes, a PIP can still be used — the critical factor is causal timing and documentation.

Whether to Wait Until the Project Is Complete

Generally, address issues as they arise, especially if they’re recurring or significant. Waiting until the project ends can:

Weaken the employer’s position by suggesting tacit acceptance of substandard work.

Limit the opportunity for the employee to correct course.

Lead to compounding errors or project impacts.

However, if the employee’s work is critical to project completion and immediate discipline could jeopardize delivery, you can document current issues, provide verbal feedback, and formalize the PIP immediately after completion.
Balance timing and operational risk, but don’t let the behaviour go unaddressed.

If the Employee Cites Personal or Family Issues

When personal factors (e.g., childcare, family illness, etc.) are affecting performance:

Ask if accommodations are needed, consistent with the employer’s duty to accommodate under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

You can still proceed with a PIP, but:

Adjust timelines or expectations as appropriate if accommodations are requested.

Document that you considered accommodations.

Frame the PIP as a collaborative tool, not punishment.

If no accommodation is requested, or if accommodations have been made and performance issues persist, you may continue with the PIP process as usual.

I hope this helps!

-HRInsider Staff

[Mali Singh]

#97466

If a full PIP isn’t desired, as in because performance were not raised earlier at the PA process and if the performance has declined but not to a point where its egregious. Would a mini PIP make sense? For example, meeting with the direct supervisor and creating a plan for the employee to follow but without the expectation that a termination will follow if they don’t improve. In this case, how much of this is better to come from the direct supervisor vs HR involvement?

[Haley O’Halloran]

#97468

A mini PIP, or informal performance support plan, is a very effective approach when performance has dipped but not to a serious or chronic level. It’s particularly appropriate when feedback wasn’t raised earlier in a performance appraisal or when there’s been a moderate decline that doesn’t yet justify a formal Performance Improvement Plan.

This type of plan works well as a developmental and coaching tool. It signals to the employee that improvement is needed but does so in a supportive, collaborative way. The intent is not disciplinary but to give structure and clarity around expectations and next steps. It helps prevent issues from escalating while also documenting reasonable efforts to help the employee succeed.

A mini PIP should still have some structure, even if it’s light. It begins with a short written summary stating that the plan is developmental, not disciplinary. It identifies two or three key performance areas that need attention, sets clear and measurable goals for each, and outlines the support that will be provided by the supervisor. The timeline is usually thirty to sixty days. Regular check-ins—weekly or biweekly—help ensure progress is tracked, and there should be a concluding meeting to discuss outcomes and next steps.

The direct supervisor should take the lead on the process. Because they work most closely with the employee, they are best positioned to define the expectations, provide coaching, and evaluate progress. They should document meetings and progress updates and share a copy with HR for the employee’s file. HR should not drive the process but instead act as a consultant, reviewing the plan before it’s presented to ensure that the tone and language are appropriate and that it aligns with company practices. HR’s involvement should be advisory, ensuring fairness and consistency rather than formality or discipline.

Tone and communication are critical. The conversation should feel collaborative, focusing on shared accountability and support. A manager might say, “Let’s create a short-term plan together to focus on the key areas you need to strengthen, and I’ll check in to make sure you have the support you need.” The document itself can be simple—often a one-page summary or an email confirming what was discussed and agreed on. It should avoid heavy HR or legal language such as “disciplinary step” or “final warning.”

HR should become more actively involved if the employee’s performance fails to improve after the mini PIP period, or if new concerns arise that could lead to formal action. HR should also step in if the issue becomes complex or sensitive, such as involving accommodation, health, or interpersonal conflict. At that stage, HR can help assess whether a formal PIP or another process is appropriate.

In summary, a mini PIP makes sense for moderate or recent performance issues where the goal is improvement rather than discipline. It typically lasts thirty to sixty days and focuses on a few key areas. The tone should be coaching and supportive, the process should be led by the supervisor with HR providing oversight, and the documentation should be concise but clear. If the issue persists or deepens, HR can then transition the process into a formal PIP or another next step.

-HRInsider Staff

[Author]

Posts