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.”