Performance Improvement Plan Template (10 PIP Templates)

A performance improvement plan template (PIP) is a structured document that sets out specific performance gaps, required improvements, measurable targets, and a defined timeline for an underperforming employee to meet expectations. The right PIP template depends on the situation: a sales rep missing quota needs a different template structure than a manager whose team is leaving, an attendance pattern problem, or a remote worker with async-communication issues. Using a generic one-size-fits-all template is the single most common reason PIPs fail to drive improvement or fail to survive tribunal scrutiny.

This guide provides 10 ready-to-use PIP templates designed for distinct workplace scenarios: standard 30, 60, and 90-day formats; role-specific templates for sales, customer service, manager, and remote worker situations; and specialised templates for behavioural / conduct issues, attendance patterns, and final pre-termination warnings. Each template is fully visualised with the relevant metrics, evidence requirements, and milestone structures baked in. Manager and HR users can adapt them directly without rebuilding the structure from scratch.

For a deeper explanation of what a PIP is, when to use one, the legal and procedural considerations, and how to deliver one well, see our companion article on performance improvement plans. This article focuses on the templates themselves rather than the underlying performance management theory. For related HR template guidance, see our succession planning template guide.

Before reaching for a performance improvement plan template, identify what kind of performance issue you are actually addressing. The wrong template applied to the wrong scenario produces a document that misses the actual problem, fails to drive improvement, and undermines the procedural defensibility of any subsequent termination. The decision matrix below maps each of the 10 templates in this guide to the scenarios they are designed for.

Choose the template that matches the underlying performance issue, not the role title alone. A sales rep with attendance issues needs the attendance template, not the sales template.

The 30-day performance improvement plan template is the most common format for narrow, measurable performance issues with a clear path to remediation. It works best when the underlying issue is well-understood, the required improvement is specific and objective, and 30 days is genuinely enough time to demonstrate sustained change. It does not work for complex skills gaps, systemic behavioural issues, or situations requiring diagnostic investigation before remediation.

The 60-day PIP splits the improvement window into two distinct phases: a stabilisation phase (Days 1-30) where root causes are diagnosed and foundational issues addressed, followed by a performance demonstration phase (Days 31-60) where full role expectations apply. This format works for issues that need both diagnosis and sustained change rather than a simple fix.

The 90-day performance improvement plan template is the formal HR standard for systemic performance issues. The three-phase structure (diagnostic, implementation, sustained performance) gives the employee genuine runway to address skills gaps or work practice issues, while building a defensible procedural record. Most large employers default to 90 days for any PIP process that may end in termination, because shorter formats are increasingly challenged at tribunal as inadequate runway in some jurisdictions.

Sales PIPs are unusual in that the underlying metrics are unambiguous: revenue closed, pipeline built, meetings booked, win rate achieved. This makes the PIP document itself shorter and more measurable than for most other roles, but introduces a different problem: a sales rep on a PIP is often coming off a difficult quarter for reasons that include territory, ICP, deal cycle, or product positioning, none of which are remediable through individual effort alone. A defensible sales PIP separates rep-controllable metrics (activity, methodology adherence, pipeline build) from outcome metrics (revenue, win rate, deal size) and measures both.

Customer service PIPs centre on quality dimensions that are hard to measure mechanically: empathy, accuracy, resolution effectiveness, and process adherence. CSAT and NPS scores capture some of this, but quality assurance scoring against a calibrated rubric is usually the better measurement framework for a PIP because it identifies specific behaviours to change rather than aggregate satisfaction outcomes.

Behavioural and conduct PIPs are the most procedurally fragile of all PIP types. Output-based issues (missed deadlines, low quality) leave clear documentary evidence; behavioural issues often rest on observation, judgment, and second-hand reports. The remedy is to require specific documented evidence for every concern raised in the PIP, with date, context, and witness or written record. Vague concerns (“attitude”, “not a culture fit”, “doesn’t fit in”) are unenforceable and create discrimination-claim risk in most jurisdictions.

Attendance PIPs require particular care because absences are frequently protected under statute or reasonable accommodation duties. The pattern of unscheduled absences must be confirmed not to involve protected medical leave, parental leave, jury duty, religious observance, or reasonable accommodation entitlements before issuing the PIP. An attendance PIP that disciplines a worker for protected absences is unlawful and creates retaliation-claim exposure. When in doubt, consult HR or employment counsel before issuing.

Manager and leadership PIPs are different in kind from individual-contributor PIPs because the failure mode is people-management: retention, delegation, feedback delivery, strategic thinking, cross-functional partnership. These competencies cannot be measured by individual output alone; they require multi-source evidence including direct-report 360 feedback, peer leader assessments, and exit interview data from former reports. A leadership PIP based only on the skip-level manager’s observations is procedurally weak and rarely survives challenge.

Remote worker PIPs introduce a category of concerns that do not exist in office environments: async response times, status visibility, output documentation, meeting reliability, and camera-on culture norms. The procedural risk is that many of these standards exist implicitly in office cultures but were never explicitly documented for remote workers. A defensible remote PIP either references standards that were already in the employee handbook, or sets out the standards clearly in the PIP itself with reasonable runway to comply, rather than disciplining an employee for behaviours that were never explicitly required.

The final written warning PIP is the last-chance format used after one or more prior PIPs or written warnings have failed to produce sustained improvement. It explicitly states that failure to meet the required standards will result in termination, includes the same measurable performance standards as a regular PIP, and requires signature from employee, manager, and HR business partner. Employee signature acknowledges receipt; it does not signify agreement with the assessment.