PIPs do more harm than good. In my 30-year HR career, here's the best alternative I've seen.

• Steve Cadigan has led HR teams at top companies for over three decades.
• He has seen how performance-improvement plans (PIPs) often fracture relationships between managers and employees. 
• The better alternative to PIPs allows employees to mutually agree to separate from the company.

Over the past three decades, I've witnessed various approaches to performance-improvement plans (PIPs) as an HR executive across five different industries and three countries.

Often, the traditional approach to PIPs — slapping them on employees who are underperforming without offering sufficient support — can feel punitive rather than constructive to many employees, fostering an environment of fear and mistrust.

But PIPs often fail to achieve their intended outcomes for a variety of reasons — from inadequately prepared managers to breakdowns in communication between managers and employees to subjective judgments of performance.

In my experience, the primary reason for the failure of PIPs lies in the irreparable fracture they create in the relationship between the employee and manager. Once the PIP process begins, this fracture in trust is seldom repaired. The atmosphere becomes palpably tense, and trust begins to erode.

PIPs lead to an irreparable fracture in the relationship

Recent stories of employees feeling unfairly targeted and demoralized and complaints of mishandling of PIPs have illuminated the complexities and challenges inherent in performance management.

These stories serve as cautionary tales, highlighting the potential pitfalls of traditional PIPs and the need for organizations to rethink their approach to managing underperformance.

Even if an employee successfully meets the objectives outlined in the PIP, the underlying tension and strain on the relationship often persist, adversely impacting productivity and morale not only for the manager and the employee, but for the entire team.

I've rarely seen managers more tense than when addressing a PIP. These conditions don't set the stage for a productive process. At their core, PIPs should reflect an organization's commitment to achieving high performance. They should identify areas for improvement, set clear expectations, and provide a roadmap for progress.

A better approach involves choice

From 1998 to 2004, I was an HR executive at Cisco Systems, where I encountered a novel approach to the traditional PIP process.

Prior to my arrival, Cisco had recognized that something was broken in the PIP process. The HR team conducted a thorough analysis of PIPs across the company and made a fascinating discovery: most individuals placed on a PIP left the company within a year, regardless of whether their performance improved.

They spoke with many of the employees who survived their PIP and improved their performance yet still chose to leave, and the story they heard had a similar refrain. The employees felt their managers did not really support them, they no longer felt they were in a safe work environment, and many felt humiliated and deeply hurt by the process.

Looking at the data and listening to employees, the HR team developed a new approach that involved choice. Employees who were not performing to an acceptable level were offered two options:

• Enter a PIP and try to improve, or

• Mutually agree to separate from the company and receive more severance than they would if they failed the PIP.

By presenting employees with this alternative path, Cisco empowered them to make decisions aligned with their personal circumstances. This approach also alleviated stress for managers, enabling them to focus on other priorities. The conversations became more constructive, and employees appreciated being given a choice rather than feeling cornered into a dead-end PIP.

Challenge conventional practices

In the years since leaving Cisco, I've introduced this alternative approach to other organizations, contributing to healthier cultures and more constructive environments.

Performance evaluation is inherently subjective, and no process can eliminate all conflicts or unexpected reactions. However, offering employees a choice rather than a one-way ticket to a PIP can lead to more positive outcomes and healthier work environments.

As HR professionals and organizational leaders, it's our responsibility to challenge conventional practices and explore innovative solutions. By rethinking performance management and embracing alternative approaches, we can create a culture of trust, transparency, and continuous improvement where both employees and organizations thrive.

Steve Cadigan is a talent advisor to leaders and organizations around the world. He specializes in helping firms build talent strategies for the modern workplace.