Should you consider quitting when put on a performance improvement plan?

I was put on a performance improvement plan. Is this a sign to quit?

Singapore employers commonly use performance improvement plans to coach underperformers and give them a chance to improve, says Ms Linda Teo, country manager at ManpowerGroup Singapore.

The benefits of helping someone get up to scratch outweigh the time and cost involved in hiring and training a new person, she notes.

It also reflects a company’s willingness to help people who have fallen short improve, she adds.

Ms Teo says companies would typically rather retain than terminate employees put on such schemes.

She adds: “Employers typically put employees on a performance improvement plan because they recognise that the (employees have) potential.”

She urges staff to consider the quality of the plan and their personal desire to continue in the job when mulling over whether to quit or take up the challenge.

“If an employee is committed to making an improvement and the manager is supportive during the performance improvement plan, there’s no need to quit when being notified of being put on (one).

“However, if the employee is disengaged from work, then there’s only so much that the employer can do.”

A good performance improvement plan should identify the root cause of underperformance and be designed to address the issue, Ms Teo says.

She adds that the plan should also be tailored to the employee with specific, attainable, relevant and time-bound goals.

Meanwhile, managers should also be open to conversations should the employee require additional support and advice.

“A key distinguishing factor between a good performance improvement plan and a bad one is the employee’s involvement in developing it.

“A good (one) will involve the employee in the conversation to give a sense of ownership and ensure (he or she understands) the goals, and expectations on improvements.”

Ms Teo also advises employees to be upfront with managers about any personal or workplace challenges that may have contributed to the underperformance to increase the chances of being set realistic goals.

It is possible that a performance improvement plan is proffered as a mere formality by a company that is already intent on terminating an employee.

Employment lawyers say telltale signs of such a plan include unrealistic goals, assigned objectives outside of one’s job scope, constantly revised targets and lack of consultation.

Companies may opt to do so because the plan is expressly provided for in the employment contract, human resource policies, or employee handbook as a formal mechanism before an employee can be terminated for poor performance, says Mr Edric Pan of Dentons Rodyk.

Mr Pan is joint deputy managing partner of the firm, and co-head of its employment and insurance practices.

Otherwise, under Singapore law, an employer can terminate an employee contractually simply by giving them notice or by paying them salary in lieu of their notice period, notes employment lawyer Clarence Ding.

Cases where the outcome of a performance improvement plan process seems clearly pre-determined, or where employers are trying to reverse engineer a negative outcome, could amount to an abuse of process, says Mr Ding, who is a partner at Simmons & Simmons.

There may be grounds to make a complaint or claim against the employer for wrongful termination, constructive dismissal, or both, in these cases.

While worries about career prospects are natural when a performance improvement plan is broached, Ms Teo says being put on one does not typically affect opportunities for an individual to progress in the current organisation.

“If employees meet the goals set out in the (plan), they will simply get back on track to their original career development plans.

”“In this case, employees may want to consider whether the job is something they are suitable for. If the employee is still not performing despite receiving support, it is important to acknowledge that the role or organisation might not be the right fit.”

Job prospects of employees earmarked for a performance improvement plan who decided to move on to another employer are unlikely to be affected if it was a one-off incident, Ms Teo notes.

“Typically, performance improvement plans are not something that will be reflected on record.”

She said: “The only time mentions of (the plan) would come up during the job-seeking process would be during the reference checks. Even so, employers would not usually go into much detail about it.

“Furthermore, the candidate has a say in which references to provide to a future employer.”

Ms Teo advises candidates to be open and honest about their strengths and limitations if questioned by a potential employer about a brush with such plans.

She suggests that candidates share examples of previous successful projects that tapped their strengths to reassure interviewers if needed.

It would also be good to mention any courses being taken to improve one’s skills, she adds.

“That said, if the candidate has had a history of performance improvement plans, such as being put on (one) for most of the companies previously worked for, it might be time for some self-reflection.”

This article was originally published in The Straits Times.