At a glance
| Document type | Employer letter template |
|---|---|
| Issued by | Employer |
| Templates included | 4 ready to use versions |
| Download format | Word (.docx) |
| Statutory reference | None cited on this page |
| Last reviewed | 26 August 2026 |
| Maintained by | Engage HR editorial team |
Performance improvement plan, written warning and show cause notice
These three documents are routinely used interchangeably. They are not interchangeable, and picking the wrong one weakens whatever follows.
| Performance improvement plan | Written warning | Show cause notice | |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it addresses | Capability. The person is trying and falling short of the standard. | Conduct. The person did something they should not have. | An allegation the employer has not yet decided on. |
| What it asks for | Improvement against stated objectives by a stated date. | That the behaviour stops immediately. | An explanation, before any finding is made. |
| Employer obligation | Provide the support and the review meetings the plan promises. | State clearly what recurrence will lead to. | Consider the reply genuinely before deciding. |
| Typical duration | Thirty to ninety days, set in advance. | Stays on record for a stated period. | Days, not weeks. A long window suggests the outcome is decided. |
| Where it goes wrong | Used to document an exit that was already decided. | Issued for a capability problem, which it cannot fix. | Written as though the finding has already been made. |
Standard performance improvement plan format
A usable plan has seven parts, in this order. The order matters, because a plan that opens with consequences and closes with objectives reads as a threat rather than a process.
- Header block. Employee name, employee code, designation, department, reporting manager, date of issue, plan period and review date.
- Statement of concern. What the shortfall is, in plain terms, with the period it covers. Two or three sentences.
- Evidence. The specific instances, figures or dates relied on. This is what turns an opinion into a finding.
- Objectives. Each one measurable, each one with its own target and date. Three to five is the workable range.
- Support. What the employer will do: training, shadowing, revised targets, weekly one to one meetings, tooling access.
- Review schedule. The dates of the interim check-ins and the final review, fixed at issue rather than arranged later.
- Consequence and acknowledgement. What follows if the standard is met, and if it is not. Signature blocks for both parties.
The acknowledgement line should say the employee received the plan, not that they agree with it. Asking someone to sign agreement to a finding they dispute produces either a refusal or a signature worth nothing.
4 letter templates
Performance Improvement Plan for output or quality shortfall
The general case: work is being delivered, but below the standard the role requires.
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Employee: [Employee Name] | Employee code: [Employee Code] Designation: [Designation] | Department: [Department] Reporting manager: [Manager Name] Date of issue: [Date] | Plan period: [Start Date] to [End Date] Review date: [Review Date] 1. Statement of concern Over the period [Start of Review Period] to [End of Review Period], your output in [Area of Work] has remained below the standard expected for the [Designation] role. This plan sets out what needs to change, the support available to you, and the date by which improvement will be assessed. 2. Evidence relied on [Instance 1: what was expected, what was delivered, and when] [Instance 2: what was expected, what was delivered, and when] [Instance 3: what was expected, what was delivered, and when] 3. Objectives a) [Objective] to reach [Target] by [Date]. b) [Objective] to reach [Target] by [Date]. c) [Objective] to reach [Target] by [Date]. 4. Support from [Company Name] [Support item, for example weekly review with the reporting manager] [Support item, for example access to [Tool or Training]] [Support item, for example reduced allocation during the plan period] 5. Review schedule Interim review: [Date] Interim review: [Date] Final review: [Review Date] 6. Outcome If the objectives above are met by [Review Date], this plan will close and no further action will follow. If they are not met, [Company Name] will consider [Stated Consequence], which may include a change of role or the ending of your employment. Issued by: [Manager Name], [Designation] Acknowledged by: [Employee Name] Date: [Date] Signing below confirms you have received this plan. It does not record agreement with its contents.
Performance Improvement Plan for sales or revenue target
Where the shortfall is against a number, the plan writes itself. The risk here is setting a catch-up target nobody could hit.
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Employee: [Employee Name] | Employee code: [Employee Code] Designation: [Designation] | Territory: [Territory] Reporting manager: [Manager Name] Date of issue: [Date] | Plan period: [Start Date] to [End Date] 1. Statement of concern Your achievement against target for [Period] was [Achieved Percentage] against a target of [Target Percentage]. Performance has been below target for [Number] consecutive [Months or Quarters]. 2. Evidence relied on [Period]: target [Target], achieved [Achieved] [Period]: target [Target], achieved [Achieved] [Period]: target [Target], achieved [Achieved] Pipeline coverage as at [Date]: [Coverage Ratio] against a required [Required Ratio]. 3. Objectives a) Achieve [Target Percentage] of the [Period] target by [Date]. b) Maintain pipeline coverage of at least [Required Ratio] measured on [Day of Week] each week. c) Complete [Number] qualified first meetings per week for the plan period. 4. Support from [Company Name] Joint calls with [Manager Name] for [Number] accounts per week. [Support item, for example lead allocation from [Source]] [Support item, for example product training on [Topic]] 5. Review schedule Weekly pipeline review every [Day of Week]. Final review: [Review Date] 6. Outcome Meeting the objectives above closes this plan. Failure to meet them will lead to [Stated Consequence]. Issued by: [Manager Name], [Designation] Acknowledged by: [Employee Name] Date: [Date]
Performance Improvement Plan for attendance and punctuality
Use this only where attendance is a capability or circumstance issue. Deliberate absence is conduct, and belongs in a different process.
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Employee: [Employee Name] | Employee code: [Employee Code] Designation: [Designation] | Department: [Department] Reporting manager: [Manager Name] Date of issue: [Date] | Plan period: [Start Date] to [End Date] 1. Statement of concern Between [Start of Review Period] and [End of Review Period] you recorded [Number] instances of unapproved absence and [Number] instances of late attendance beyond the [Grace Period] permitted under the attendance policy. The pattern has affected [Stated Impact]. 2. Evidence relied on Unapproved absence: [Dates] Late attendance: [Dates] Absence applications submitted after the fact: [Number] 3. Objectives a) No unapproved absence for the plan period. b) All leave applied for in advance through [System Name], other than emergencies notified to [Manager Name] before shift start. c) Attendance within the published grace period on at least [Percentage] of working days. 4. Support from [Company Name] A conversation with [HR Contact] about any circumstance affecting attendance, including any adjustment that may help. [Support item, for example a revised shift pattern for the plan period] A copy of the attendance policy, reissued with this plan. 5. Review schedule Fortnightly check-in with [Manager Name]. Final review: [Review Date] 6. Outcome If attendance meets the objectives above by [Review Date], this plan will close. If it does not, [Company Name] will consider [Stated Consequence]. Issued by: [Manager Name], [Designation] Acknowledged by: [Employee Name] Date: [Date]
Performance Improvement Plan for new hire during probation
A shorter plan, because the probation period is itself the assessment window. The objectives should be the ones confirmation depends on.
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN (PROBATION) Employee: [Employee Name] | Employee code: [Employee Code] Designation: [Designation] | Date of joining: [Date of Joining] Probation end date: [Probation End Date] Reporting manager: [Manager Name] Date of issue: [Date] | Plan period: [Start Date] to [End Date] 1. Statement of concern At [Number] weeks into your probation period, progress against the expectations set at induction has been below what confirmation in the [Designation] role requires. This plan states what needs to be demonstrated before [Probation End Date]. 2. Evidence relied on [Expectation set at induction, and the gap observed] [Expectation set at induction, and the gap observed] [Feedback given on [Date], and what followed] 3. Objectives to be met before [Probation End Date] a) [Objective] demonstrated on [Number] occasions, assessed by [Assessor]. b) [Objective] to reach [Target] by [Date]. c) Independent completion of [Task or Process] without escalation. 4. Support from [Company Name] Shadowing [Colleague Role] for [Number] sessions. Weekly one to one with [Manager Name] for the plan period. [Support item, for example completion of [Training Module]] 5. Review schedule Weekly one to one, every [Day of Week]. Final review: [Review Date], ahead of the probation decision on [Probation End Date]. 6. Outcome Meeting these objectives supports confirmation on [Probation End Date]. Not meeting them will lead to [Stated Consequence], which may include extension of probation or the ending of your employment in line with your terms. Issued by: [Manager Name], [Designation] Acknowledged by: [Employee Name] Date: [Date]
What it has to contain
| Element | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| A dated plan period with a fixed review date | An open-ended plan never concludes. The review date is what turns the document into a process with an end, and its absence is the most common reason a plan is later treated as meaningless. |
| Objectives that another person could assess identically | "Improve communication" cannot be passed or failed. "Circulate written minutes within one working day of each client call" can. If two reasonable people would reach different verdicts on the same evidence, the objective is not written yet. |
| The evidence the concern rests on | Specific instances with dates separate a finding from an impression. A plan that asserts underperformance without showing it invites the reply that none occurred, and leaves the manager with nothing to point at. |
| What the employer will do | A plan listing only the employee's obligations is a demand. Naming the training, the review meetings and the access the employer provides is also what demonstrates, later, that improvement was genuinely sought. |
| A stated consequence | The employee is entitled to know what is at stake. A plan that hints at consequences without naming them fails on fairness and leaves the employer unable to rely on it. |
| An acknowledgement of receipt, not of agreement | The employee may dispute the findings and still have received the plan. Conflating the two invites the employee to refuse the plan outright, and the refusal becomes a second dispute on top of the first. |
How to write one
- Establish that this is a capability problem. Ask whether the person is trying and falling short, or choosing not to do something. Capability goes to a plan. Conduct goes to the disciplinary process. Getting this wrong at the start means the rest of the process addresses the wrong thing.
- Assemble the evidence before drafting. Collect the specific instances, dates and figures first, then write the statement of concern from them. Drafting the concern first and looking for support afterwards produces a plan that argues a conclusion rather than one that records a finding.
- Write objectives with a number and a date. Take each concern and convert it into something with a target and a deadline. Three to five objectives is the workable range. More than that and the plan becomes impossible to satisfy, which defeats its purpose.
- Decide the support before the meeting. Work out what training, time, tooling or supervision the employer will provide, and put it in the plan. Support offered vaguely in a meeting and never delivered is the detail that undoes an otherwise sound process.
- Deliver it in a conversation, not by email alone. Walk through the plan in person or on a call, take the employee's response, and record anything they raise. Then send the written plan the same day. A plan that first appears in an inbox reads as a decision already taken.
- Hold the review meetings you scheduled. Interim reviews are where the plan either works or visibly does not. Skipping them and arriving at the final review with a verdict is the single most damaging thing a manager can do to the process.
- Close the plan explicitly. Whatever the outcome, write it down and tell the employee. A plan that simply lapses leaves the employee unsure of their standing and the employer unable to point to a conclusion.
What a plan is actually for
Two quite different documents get called a performance improvement plan. One is a management tool for fixing a gap between what a role requires and what someone is delivering. The other is a procedural step taken because an exit is coming and the file needs to show something happened first.
The second is common, and it is the reason the instrument has a poor reputation with employees. It is also the version that fails when examined, because the tells are visible on the page: support that was promised and never delivered, review meetings scheduled and not held, targets set out of reach.
The distinction matters practically, not just ethically. A plan run as a genuine attempt to fix performance produces one of two useful outcomes: the performance improves, or the employer has a clear, documented basis for what follows. A plan run as paperwork produces neither, because the record shows the process was decorative.
The practical test before issuing one: if this person met every objective, would you be satisfied to keep them in the role? If the answer is no, the plan is the wrong instrument.
Setting the period
Thirty, sixty and ninety days are the periods in general use, and the choice should follow the work rather than convention.
The question is how long a fair sample of the person's output takes to accumulate. A support engineer produces enough evidence in thirty days. An enterprise salesperson with a six month cycle does not, and a thirty day plan measures activity rather than results, which is a weaker basis for whatever follows.
Two errors are common. Too short a period makes improvement impossible to demonstrate, which reads as a plan designed to fail. Too long a period leaves the employee under scrutiny for months and the team carrying the shortfall, and the plan loses whatever urgency it had.
Where the role has a long cycle, set the objectives on leading indicators that do fit the window, and say in the plan that this is what you are doing and why.
Where Indian employment practice bears on this
There is no statute in India that requires a performance improvement plan or prescribes its contents. It is a management practice, not a legal instrument, and that has two consequences worth understanding before relying on one.
The first is that whatever process the employer has committed itself to elsewhere still applies. Terms in the appointment letter, provisions in certified standing orders where the establishment is covered by them, and the organisation's own published policy all bind the employer regardless of what a plan says. A plan cannot shorten a contractual notice period or displace a procedure the employer has published.
The second is that the plan's value is evidential. Where the ending of employment is later questioned, the documentation of what was raised, when, what support was given and what the employee was told is what the employer has to rely on. That is an argument for running the process properly rather than for running it at all.
Where a plan is likely to end in separation, the applicable statutory position on notice, dues and process should be checked against the specific establishment and the specific terms rather than assumed. The rules differ by headcount, by state enactment and by whether the person is a worker within the meaning of the applicable Code.
Common mistakes
| Mistake | Why it causes trouble | What to do instead |
|---|---|---|
| Starting a plan when the decision to exit has already been made | The support is never delivered, the reviews are perfunctory, and the record shows it. This is the pattern that turns a defensible capability process into evidence of bad faith. | If the decision is made, use the process that fits it. If it is not, run the plan properly and accept that it may succeed. |
| Objectives written as adjectives | "More proactive", "better attention to detail" and "stronger ownership" cannot be assessed, so the final review turns into an argument about interpretation. | Convert each one into an observable action with a frequency or a threshold, then check whether a second manager would score it the same way. |
| A catch-up target set beyond reach | Requiring a quarter's shortfall to be recovered in thirty days makes failure certain, which tells a later reader the plan was not a real opportunity to improve. | Set the target at the standard the role requires going forward, not at recovering the whole historic gap. |
| Using a plan for misconduct | Capability plans cannot address deliberate acts, so the behaviour continues through the plan period while the employer treats it as a performance issue. | Separate the two. Run the disciplinary process for the conduct and, if a genuine capability gap also exists, deal with it on its own footing. |
| No record of the delivery conversation | When the employee later says the plan was never explained, or that they raised a health issue nobody acted on, there is nothing to check the claim against. | Write a short note of the meeting the same day, including anything the employee raised, and keep it with the plan. |
| Leaving the plan open past its review date | The period lapses, nobody closes it, and the employee is left on an indefinite plan. Any later reliance on it is weak, because the employer did not follow its own timetable. | Diarise the review date at issue and hold it. If more time is warranted, extend the plan in writing with a new date. |
Frequently asked questions
How long should a performance improvement plan run?
Long enough to gather a fair sample of the person's work, which in practice means thirty days for a role with a short output cycle and up to ninety for one with a long sales or delivery cycle. Set the period at issue and put the review date in the document.
Can an employee refuse to sign a performance improvement plan?
Yes, and it happens most often when the signature block asks for agreement rather than receipt. Reword it to confirm receipt only. If the employee still declines, note the refusal on the file, send the plan by email the same day, and proceed with the process.
Is a performance improvement plan legally required in India?
No statute requires one or prescribes its contents. Its value is evidential: it records what was raised, what support was given and what the employee was told, which is what an employer relies on if the ending of employment is later questioned.
What is the difference between a performance improvement plan and a warning letter?
A plan addresses capability, where someone is trying and falling short, and asks for improvement against stated objectives. A warning addresses conduct, where someone did something they should not have, and asks for the behaviour to stop. Using a plan for misconduct lets the behaviour continue through the plan period.
Can an employee be dismissed during a performance improvement plan?
The plan does not suspend the employment relationship or the employer's other obligations, but ending employment before the review date the employer itself set undermines the process. Where separate grounds arise, such as misconduct, those are dealt with under their own procedure rather than through the plan.
What happens when the plan period ends?
The plan should be closed explicitly and in writing, whichever way it went. Letting it lapse without a decision leaves the employee unclear about their standing and leaves the employer without a documented conclusion to rely on.
Should HR or the reporting manager write the plan?
The manager writes the concern, the evidence and the objectives, because they are the ones who can specify what the role requires. HR checks the plan against policy and past practice, confirms the consequence is stated accurately, and keeps the record. A plan written entirely by HR tends to be generic in exactly the places specificity matters.
Can a plan be extended?
Yes, where there is a genuine reason such as absence during the period or a support commitment the employer failed to deliver. Extend it in writing with a new review date. An extension granted informally, with no new date, is the same as letting the plan lapse.
Running improvement plans in Engage
Engage keeps the plan attached to the employee record rather than in a manager's drive, so the objectives, the interim review notes and the final outcome sit together and stay with the case when the reporting line changes. Review dates raise reminders, so a plan does not quietly lapse past the date it was meant to conclude on.
Book a demo