Why American HR Cannot Do This
The HR-adviseur with verbetertraject specialization is a role that does not exist in the American HR framework because it does not need to. In the US, the PIP is whatever HR says it is. In the Netherlands, the verbetertraject is whatever the kantonrechter says it is, and the HR-adviseur's job is to ensure those two assessments align.
The specialist operates at the intersection of HR practice and employment law:
- They design improvement plans with goals that meet Dutch court specificity standards — not "improve communication skills" but "respond to client emails within four business hours, attend all scheduled team syncs, and deliver weekly status reports by Friday 17:00"
- They establish the bi-weekly evaluation cadence that courts expect
- They create documentation templates that capture the right information in the right format
- They arrange external coaching — increasingly a baseline expectation for behavioral or soft-skill issues
- They ensure the coaching is genuine support, not performative box-checking
Dutch courts are acutely sensitive to whether the employer genuinely intended to help the employee improve or was merely building a termination file. If the improvement plan was presented as an ultimatum, the goals set to be unachievable, or no real support offered — the court will reject the termination and may award additional compensation for culpable conduct.
Beyond the verbetertraject, these specialists often serve a broader HR function for smaller subsidiaries. A US company with 10-20 Dutch employees rarely needs a full-time Dutch HR manager, but it absolutely needs someone who understands CAO compliance, employee handbook requirements, and Wet Verbetering Poortwachter obligations.
The Four Predictable Failures
The timeline collapses. US management expects a 30-60-90 day resolution. For a mid-level Dutch professional, courts routinely require six to twelve months — and for senior or long-tenured employees, up to twelve or longer. The 90-day plan concludes, the employee has not improved, management moves to terminate — and the arbeidsrechtadvocaat explains the verbetertraject is legally insufficient.
The goals fail the specificity test. American PIPs routinely contain objectives like "demonstrate leadership" or "meet performance expectations." These are legally meaningless in a Dutch courtroom. The kantonrechter requires SMART goals applied with forensic rigor.
The support element is missing. In the US, the PIP places the burden of improvement entirely on the employee. In the Netherlands, the employer bears an equal burden — coaching, training, workload adjustments, and a supportive rather than punitive tone.
The alternative position investigation is skipped. Dutch law requires the employer to investigate whether the employee can be redeployed to a suitable alternative position across the entire global corporate group. An American HR team, unfamiliar with this requirement, will skip it. A kantonrechter will notice immediately.
The Numbers
Verbetertraject Design and Management
| Service | Cost Range |
|---|---|
| Full verbetertraject design and management (6-12 months) | EUR 5,000 - 15,000 per case |
| Outsourced HR manager (ongoing) | EUR 3,000 - 8,000/month |
| Employee handbook development (Dutch-compliant) | EUR 5,000 - 10,000 |
| Hourly advisory rate | EUR 150 - 250/hr |
Cost Comparison: Specialist-Managed vs. US-HR-Managed
| Scenario | With HR-Adviseur | Without |
|---|---|---|
| Performance termination (mid-level, 4 years) | EUR 35,000 - 55,000 (proper trajectory + statutory severance or modest settlement) | EUR 85,000 - 150,000 (failed PIP + denied petition + forced settlement at 2-3x) |
| Verbetertraject leading to genuine improvement | EUR 8,000 - 15,000 (coaching + specialist fees, employee retained and productive) | Rarely attempted — American PIPs are not designed to succeed |
| Restructuring communications + handbook | EUR 12,000 - 18,000 | EUR 5,000 upfront + EUR 30,000 - 60,000 correcting non-compliant processes later |
Without an HR-adviseur, the verbetertraject burden falls entirely on the line manager. An HR-adviseur reduces the manager's time commitment from 8-12 hours per week to 2-3 hours.
The Cases
The 30-day PIP that cost EUR 85,000. A US enterprise software company needed to address underperformance of a senior account executive — three years' tenure, EUR 95,000 salary. The US VP of Sales instructed HR to "put him on a PIP and manage him out by end of quarter." The HRBP designed a 30-day plan with three objectives: "improve pipeline generation," "increase client meeting frequency," and "demonstrate stronger collaboration." No coaching was offered. No alternative positions investigated. At day 31, the company moved to terminate. The arbeidsrechtadvocaat identified five fatal deficiencies: insufficient duration, goals not SMART-compliant, no coaching, no alternatives explored, and internal emails framing the PIP as a termination precursor. The kantonrechter denied the petition. Settlement: EUR 85,000, nearly three times statutory severance.
The missing verbetertraject. A US consumer goods company identified a marketing coordinator whose work quality had declined over eight months. Rather than investing in a verbetertraject — "too slow and too European," per the US HR director — the company filed a termination petition for disfunctioneren. The judge's response: no trajectory conducted, no coaching offered, no goals set, no alternatives investigated. Petition denied. The company settled for EUR 62,000 — for an employee with two years' tenure and a EUR 48,000 salary. The verbetertraject they skipped would have cost EUR 8,000-12,000.
A US medtech company with a 22-person Dutch subsidiary engaged an HR-adviseur when a clinical affairs manager showed persistent underperformance. The specialist designed a six-month trajectory with SMART-compliant goals, bi-weekly evaluations, and monthly external coaching. At month four, performance had not improved. The HR-adviseur initiated the alternative position investigation, documented no suitable roles, and prepared the dossier. The kantonrechter approved the termination, specifically noting the thoroughness of the trajectory. Total cost: EUR 42,000. Without the specialist, the company would have faced a denied petition and settlement in the EUR 90,000-120,000 range.
What This Means for Your Timeline
If your Dutch subsidiary has more than five employees, performance issues are not a question of if but when. The path from identifying a problem to resolving it runs through a legally regulated process that takes months, not weeks.
You do not need a full-time Dutch HR professional from day one. But you need access to one — an outsourced HR-adviseur who understands verbetertraject case law, can step in when a performance issue surfaces, and can handle the broader HR infrastructure that Dutch law requires.
The timing matters. Engaging an HR-adviseur after you have already started a PIP-style process means the specialist is cleaning up damage rather than building from a sound foundation. Every week of an improperly structured process is documentation that Dutch courts will scrutinize — and the employee's lawyer will use the transition from amateur PIP to professional verbetertraject as evidence that the employer did not know what it was doing.
What This Role Requires
Track record of verbetertrajecten that survived court challenge. Ask for anonymized case examples where the specialist designed a trajectory that was tested in court — either through a successful kantonrechter petition or a settlement negotiation where the dossier's strength drove favorable terms. A specialist who has only designed trajectories that were never legally tested may be designing trajectories that would not survive testing.
Current knowledge of case law. Dutch employment case law evolves continuously. The Ecofys factors from 2019 established the framework, but subsequent decisions have refined what counts as adequate coaching, sufficient duration, and genuine intent. The specialist must be actively tracking this case law.
Experience with international and US-parented companies. The cultural translation work is as important as the legal work. The specialist must understand why the American VP of HR is pushing for a 30-day resolution, must explain why that timeline is legally impossible without being dismissive, and must frame the verbetertraject in language American leadership understands — timelines, costs, probabilities, risk scenarios.
Ability to operate as outsourced HR for small subsidiaries. For companies with fewer than 25 Dutch employees, the verbetertraject specialist who also handles employee handbooks, CAO implementation, sick leave coordination, and restructuring communications provides dramatically better value than engaging separate providers.
NVP membership (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Personeelsmanagement & Organisatieontwikkeling). This professional association signals commitment to continuing education and peer networks. International credentials like SHRM or CIPD are useful signals of cross-cultural competence but are not substitutes for Dutch-specific expertise.
Collaborative relationship with an arbeidsrechtadvocaat. The HR-adviseur designs and manages the day-to-day process. The arbeidsrechtadvocaat advises on legal adequacy. A specialist who works in isolation from legal counsel is building a trajectory without knowing whether it will hold up in court. Look for an HR-adviseur with established working relationships with employer-side employment lawyers and built-in legal checkpoints.
Understanding of the cultural gap. The hardest part of this role is translating American performance expectations into a Dutch legal framework without losing either the business urgency or the legal rigor. The specialist must be able to tell the US VP of HR that a 30-day PIP is legally void, explain what a six-month verbetertraject looks like, and quantify the financial risk of shortcuts.
Firms and providers with relevant expertise: GITP, Schouten & Nelissen, Europe HR Solutions, and Human in Progress. Your selection should prioritize demonstrated Dutch case law expertise and international client experience over firm size.
Sources
Legal Framework
- ECLI:NL:HR:2019:933 (Ecofys) — Supreme Court factors for verbetertraject adequacy
- Burgerlijk Wetboek Book 7, Title 10 — Dutch employment law, performance termination grounds
- Wet Verbetering Poortwachter — Sick leave reintegration obligations
Professional Bodies
Research compiled 2026-03-16. Figures are current as of 2025-2026 unless otherwise noted.