The PIP Playbook: Reading the Warning Signs Before You’re Quietly Let Go

The performance improvement plan has always carried a certain dread, but the scale of its use has shifted noticeably. A study by HR software firm HR Acuity found that formal performance procedures affected 43.6 out of every 1,000 US workers in a recent year — a nearly 30% increase from 2020. That rise has tracked closely alongside waves of tech-sector layoffs, and career coaches who work directly with engineering managers at major companies report growing, explicit pressure to place a set quota of staff on PIPs regardless of whether the team is actually underperforming — specifically so leadership has people “ready” to exit if a reduction in force becomes necessary.

Sandeep Anand, TEDx Speaker, Golden Gavel Awardee, and Founder of Global Leaders Hub, has coached professionals across the US, UK, and Canada through exactly this ambiguity using his Clarity Before Strategy™ (CBS™) methodology — helping them read what’s actually happening and respond without panicking or getting blindsided. This guide covers why PIPs are rising, how to tell a genuine one from a pretext, and what to do either way.

Why PIPs are surging

Part of the rise is structural. As companies work through post-pandemic workforce corrections, using a formal performance process to manage an exit is, in blunt terms, cheaper and less reputationally risky than an announced layoff round. It avoids severance obligations in many jurisdictions, sidesteps the negative press that accompanies visible layoffs, and fits a narrative of “getting lean” rather than “cutting costs.” One career coach who works with engineering leaders at several major tech employers has described managers facing literal PIP quotas — a required percentage of their team that must be on a plan at any given time, independent of actual performance.

This doesn’t mean every PIP is a setup. Some genuinely function as intended: a structured, good-faith attempt to help a struggling employee close a specific gap, often with real mentoring or training attached. The trouble is that from the employee’s side, a genuine PIP and a pretextual one can look identical in the first week, which is exactly what makes the current environment so unsettling for workers trying to figure out which one they’re in.

The conversation around this became impossible to ignore after a former Cloudflare employee filmed her own termination call and posted it online, sparking a wave of public discussion about how companies invoke undocumented “performance concerns” during layoffs without specifying what metrics were actually missed. The video amplified something many employees had suspected privately but rarely saw confirmed so directly: that performance framing is sometimes applied after the decision to let someone go has already been made, not before it, as a way of managing legal and reputational exposure rather than genuinely addressing a skills gap. That single moment reshaped how a lot of workers now read management language around performance, for better or worse.

Genuine improvement plan or quiet layoff?

There are patterns worth watching for. A PIP that arrives with no real warning — following a string of positive one-on-ones, strong performance reviews, or informal praise — is a much stronger signal of pretext than one that follows a documented pattern of missed deadlines or specific, repeated feedback. Vague or shifting success criteria are another red flag: a genuine improvement plan sets metrics an employee can actually track and hit, while a pretextual one often leaves goals deliberately fuzzy so that “success” can be redefined later regardless of what the employee accomplishes.

Context matters too. A PIP issued during or shortly before a broader round of company layoffs, restructuring, or a hiring freeze carries more weight as a warning sign than one issued in isolation. So does the presence — or conspicuous absence — of real support: mentoring, training budget, adjusted workload, or a manager who is actually invested in the outcome. As one tech executive candidly put it in a widely discussed interview, some leaders would rather terminate someone outright than put them through a process that both sides privately understand isn’t designed to succeed — which is itself a signal that not every PIP program within a company operates in good faith.

“A PIP with no warning, vague goals, and no real support isn’t a performance plan — it’s a paper trail. Read it as one, and you stop wasting emotional energy trying to win a game that was decided before you were told the rules.” — Sandeep Anand, Global Leaders Hub

What to do if you’re placed on a PIP

The instinct to treat a PIP as binary — either fully trust the process or give up immediately — is usually the wrong frame. The better approach runs two tracks simultaneously: engage seriously and visibly with the plan’s stated requirements, documenting your progress in writing as you go, while quietly restarting your job search in parallel. This isn’t cynicism; even well-intentioned PIPs are, by most available research, an unreliably effective tool for genuinely improving performance, and the odds of a full recovery from a formal plan are lower than most employees assume.

Documentation matters more during a PIP than at almost any other point in an employment relationship. Save performance reviews, praise, and one-on-one notes that predate the plan — they become important if the situation escalates to a negotiated exit or, in some jurisdictions, a legal question. And if it becomes clear the plan is unlikely to end in your favor, it is often possible to negotiate a mutually agreed departure with severance rather than riding out a process to its conclusion, since that outcome is frequently less costly for the employer too.

Regional context matters here as well. In the UK and Canada, formal capability or performance procedures typically carry more procedural obligation on the employer than in most US states, where at-will employment gives companies wide latitude to terminate with comparatively little process — which is part of why some employers still run a PIP even where it isn’t strictly required, since it builds a documented record that protects them if a dispute arises later. Understanding which protections apply in your specific jurisdiction changes how much weight a PIP should carry in your own decision-making, and it’s worth clarifying early rather than assuming the same playbook applies everywhere.

The CBS™ Response — Playing Both Tracks at Once

Sandeep Anand’s Clarity Before Strategy™ methodology treats a PIP as requiring three distinct responses, depending on where someone stands.

• 1
  Just placed on a PIP: the priority is reading the situation accurately before reacting emotionally. A Career Pivot Strategy session helps assess the specific pattern and build a realistic plan for the weeks ahead.
• 2
  Running both tracks — completing the plan while job searching: managing this without burning out or tipping your hand requires structure. A Career Strategy Intensive is built for exactly this dual-track period.
• 3
  Approaching a likely negotiated exit: severance and exit terms are negotiable more often than employees realize, but rarely negotiated well without preparation. The Salary Negotiation Playbook covers how to secure better terms on the way out, not just on the way in.

A PIP is unsettling by design — that’s part of why some organizations lean on it. But it doesn’t have to dictate your next move. With a clear read on what’s actually happening and a plan that runs on two tracks at once, a PIP becomes a period to manage strategically rather than a verdict to simply absorb.