Belarusian professional culture falls somewhere between German directness and Russian hierarchical awareness. That\u2019s a rough shorthand, but it helps. The following are the most common patterns that trip up international managers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Formal feedback hits hard. Much harder than you\u2019d expect if you\u2019re coming from Silicon Valley, where everyone pretends a \u201c3\u201d is neutral. In Belarus, when you put something in writing or attach a number to someone\u2019s work, they treat it as a definitive statement. Engineers who get a middling score in a structured review often walk away thinking the company is building a file on them. Even if you meant it as \u201cyou\u2019re doing fine, here\u2019s where to push.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Public criticism is a trust-killer. This one catches remote managers off guard. You call out a missed deadline in a team Slack channel, thinking you\u2019re being transparent. What the engineer hears is humiliation in front of peers. Keep critical feedback private, tied to specific work, and separate from the person. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Feedback is received differently depending on technical credibility. A CTO who can analyze the code and identify a specific architectural risk will be treated quite differently than a people manager who says, “The team feels your code quality has slipped.” If you\u2019re not technical, bring someone who is. It\u2019s not about ego. It\u2019s about whether the engineer trusts the source.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ask but do not tell. This may be the most useful modification a foreign manager can make. Instead of \u201cYou need to refactor this module,\u201d try \u201cWhat would you change about how this module is structured?\u201d Same destination. But one version treats the engineer as a professional with judgment, and the other treats them as someone who needs to be corrected. Guess which one gets better results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Review Cadence: What Actually Works<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nMost serious IT businesses in Belarus have already discontinued annual reviews. They are too infrequent to be beneficial, and in a culture where formal criticism is valued, an annual review feels more like a punishment than a conversation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here\u2019s the three-layer cadence that works for distributed teams with Belarusian engineers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Quarterly structured reviews. <\/strong>This is the backbone. Both sides prepare. You look at what was agreed last quarter, you talk about what happened, and you set goals for the next one. If you\u2019re going to use ratings or scores at all, this is the only place they should appear. These need to be documented \u2014 partly because documentation is good management practice, and partly because Belarusian labor law will want to see a paper trail if you ever need to act on underperformance.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMonthly one-on-ones. <\/strong>Thirty minutes. Informal. Not a status update \u2014 that\u2019s what standups are for. This is where you find out that someone is frustrated with the architecture decisions being made above them, or burned out after a sprint crunch, or quietly thinking about leaving because nobody\u2019s talked to them about their career path in six months. Problems that show up in quarterly reviews as \u201cperformance issues\u201d very often started as things someone would have told you in a one-on-one if you\u2019d asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWeekly or biweekly standups <\/strong>for project-level stuff. Sprint retros, delivery updates, code review feedback. These are not performance reviews, and treating them like performance reviews confuses the signal and makes people defensive about the wrong things.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhy does quarterly beat annual? Because an engineer who hears \u201cyou\u2019ve been underperforming for a year\u201d has nowhere to go in that conversation. An engineer who hears \u201cthis quarter didn\u2019t land \u2014 let\u2019s figure out what happened and fix it\u201d has a path forward. That distinction matters everywhere, but it matters especially in a culture where formal negative feedback feels like a much bigger deal than Americans tend to realize.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One-on-Ones: The Tool Nobody Uses Enough<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nHere\u2019s a pattern we see constantly: a foreign manager has a Belarusian engineering team working remotely, relies on Slack and daily standups for communication, skips one-on-ones because \u201cwe talk every day anyway,\u201d and then is surprised when a performance problem seems to come out of nowhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Standups tell you what people are doing. One-on-ones tell you how people are feeling about what they\u2019re doing. That\u2019s a completely different signal, and you cannot get it from a group setting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A few things that make one-on-ones work with Belarusian teams specifically. Don\u2019t cancel them. Seriously. Canceling a one-on-one tells the engineer it\u2019s not important to you, and in a professional culture where relationships are taken seriously, that registers as a lack of respect. Let the engineer set the agenda first \u2014 you learn more when they pick the topics. Don\u2019t ambush people with critical feedback in a one-on-one; save that for the structured quarterly review where they can prepare too. And talk about their career. Where do they want to be in two years? What skills do they want to build? Belarusian engineers take professional growth seriously, and the one-on-one is where you show that you do too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you\u2019re managing a team through an EOR and don\u2019t have an internal HR function, Recruitment.by\u2019s HR consulting team<\/a> can help you set up these rhythms. It\u2019s not complicated, but having someone who knows the local professional culture makes the setup faster and the mistakes fewer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/recruitment.by\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/business-woman-are-looking-company-s-financial-documents-analyze-problems-find-solutions-before-bringing-information-meeting-with-partner-financial-concept-1024x683.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nBefore the PIP: The Conversation You Can\u2019t Skip<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThis might be the most important section in this entire post. If you take one thing away, let it be this: do not put a Belarusian engineer on a formal PIP without having had at least two prior conversations about the issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
PIPs can occasionally emerge swiftly in US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When performance dips, the management notices it, HR develops a plan, and the employee receives a document. That cadence, applied to a Belarusian team, feels like a betrayal. The engineer’s internal reaction is: “You never informed me of a problem, and now I’m on a formal improvement plan? You were preparing a case against me. Even if it isn’t what happened, that’s how it appears.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Before any formal PIP, honestly ask yourself: did I tell this person, clearly and specifically, what the problem is? Did I check whether something outside of work is going on \u2014 health, family, burnout? Did I actually offer help \u2014 not in a vague \u201clet me know if you need anything\u201d way, but specific help like training, workload adjustment, or pairing them with a stronger engineer on the area where they\u2019re struggling? Did I give them a real timeline to improve? And did I follow up?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If all of that happened and things didn\u2019t get better, then a PIP is the right next step. Research cited by RemoFirst<\/a> suggests that PIPs with real support behind them work about 60% of the time. But that number only holds when the employee genuinely believes the PIP is a chance to get back on track, not a paper trail for firing them. If you skipped the informal stage, you\u2019ve already told them which one it is.<\/p>\n\n\n\nPIPs in Belarus: What the Law Actually Says<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThis is where it gets real. If you\u2019re used to US at-will employment, you need to recalibrate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Belarusian labor law \u2014 specifically Article 42 of the Labour Code \u2014 doesn\u2019t have a \u201cpoor performance\u201d termination category the way American employment does. You can\u2019t just decide someone isn\u2019t working out and let them go. Grata International\u2019s legal analysis<\/a> spells it out: dismissal has to be based on specific statutory grounds. The closest one to \u201cperformance\u201d is \u201csystematic failure to perform duties without valid reason, where disciplinary measures have been applied previously.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\nRead that last part again: \u201cwhere disciplinary measures have been applied previously.\u201d Before you can take action, you must first establish a documented trail of warnings and improvement possibilities. A well-built PIP is that trail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What goes into a PIP that actually holds up? Specific performance gaps with dates and evidence \u2014 not \u201ctheir work has been below expectations\u201d but \u201cmissed delivery deadlines on three out of five sprint commitments in Q2, specifically on tickets X, Y, and Z.\u201d Clear improvement targets with a timeline \u2014 30, 60, or 90 days, depending on the situation. Real support: training, mentorship, adjusted workload. Weekly check-ins during the PIP so the engineer gets regular feedback, not silence followed by a verdict. Everything in writing. And the employee should sign or acknowledge receipt of the document.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What kills a PIP legally? Vague language. \u201cBad attitude\u201d and \u201cnot a culture fit\u201d are not enforceable under Belarusian law and will get shredded if this ever reaches a labor dispute. Punitive framing \u2014 if the PIP reads like a threat instead of a plan, it undermines the entire purpose. And issuing a PIP without prior informal feedback \u2014 legally weak and culturally tone-deaf.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If the PIP ends and improvement didn\u2019t happen, the documentation gives you legal standing for termination. If you\u2019re employing through an EOR or PEO<\/a>, they handle the legal process \u2014 but the evidence has to come from you.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhen It\u2019s Over: How Termination Actually Works<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nSo the PIP ran its course and things didn\u2019t improve. Now what?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
You can proceed with termination, but only if the process was clean. Rivermate\u2019s termination guide for Belarus<\/a> lays out the mechanics: one month\u2019s notice minimum, severance of at least three average monthly salaries for employer-initiated dismissals, a written dismissal order, the employee\u2019s employment record book returned, and final settlement \u2014 including accrued leave \u2014 paid on the last working day. Not the next pay cycle. The last day.<\/p>\n\n\n\nIf you\u2019re using an EOR, they execute the procedural steps. But they can\u2019t manufacture a documentation trail that doesn\u2019t exist. The quarterly reviews, the one-on-one notes, the PIP itself, the evidence that you offered support \u2014 that all has to come from the manager\u2019s side.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If things go wrong: insufficient documentation trail, bypassing the informal feedback stage prior to the PIP, attempting to terminate someone on maternity or child care leave (legally protected, period), and failing to engage the trade union if a collective agreement mandates it. Belarus\u2019s employment law framework<\/a> protects employees strongly against arbitrary dismissal. Courts can and do restore people, including back pay for the full time they were absent. That\u2019s not a theoretical risk. It happens.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe takeaway is simple: build the documentation from day one. If your review process is running properly, the paper trail creates itself, and you never have to scramble to reconstruct it after the fact. If you\u2019re setting up employment in Belarus for the first time, Recruitment.by\u2019s payroll and EOR services<\/a> include compliance guidance for exactly these situations.<\/p>\n\n\n\nSmall Things That Aren\u2019t Small<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThese are the details that don\u2019t make it into management textbooks but make a real difference when you\u2019re leading a Belarusian engineering team.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Don\u2019t give tough feedback on Friday afternoon. <\/strong>The engineer goes into the weekend replaying the conversation, can\u2019t ask follow-up questions, and comes back Monday either resentful or anxious. Schedule hard conversations early in the week so there\u2019s time to talk through it while you\u2019re both still at work.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWatch your framing. <\/strong>\u201cYou failed to meet the deadline\u201d and \u201cThe deadline slipped \u2014 what happened?\u201d get you to the same place. But the first one sounds like an accusation, and the second sounds like a conversation. With Belarusian engineers, that difference isn\u2019t subtle. It\u2019s the difference between someone who gets defensive and someone who actually tells you what went wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\nTurn your camera on. <\/strong>If you\u2019re doing a quarterly review or any serious feedback conversation over video, be on camera. A voice-only call for something that matters to the engineer\u2019s career says you didn\u2019t think it was worth showing up for.<\/p>\n\n\n\nSend a written summary. <\/strong>Following each review or difficult conversation, provide a brief written summary. Belarusian professionals place a high priority on written documentation. It shows the conversation was real, not something that can be rewritten later.<\/p>\n\n\n\nBe consistent. <\/strong>If one person gets quarterly reviews and another doesn\u2019t, people notice instantly. And they don\u2019t assume it\u2019s an oversight. They assume it\u2019s favoritism or targeting.<\/p>\n\n\n\nSay thank you sometimes. <\/strong>Belarusian engineers aren\u2019t going to ask you for recognition. But they absolutely notice when it\u2019s missing. A message from the CTO after a strong quarter, a shoutout when someone solved a nasty bug, a note when a feature ships \u2014 it costs nothing, and it builds the kind of loyalty that a bigger paycheck somewhere else can\u2019t easily undo. If you want a fuller picture of what keeps Belarusian IT talent around, our guide to health insurance and wellness benefits<\/a> covers the structural side.<\/p>\n\n\n\r\n \r\n Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\r\n \r\n\t\t\t \r\n Is a PIP legally required before terminating an employee in Belarus?<\/div>\r\n \r\n The law doesn\u2019t use the word \u201cPIP.\u201d But it does require that dismissal for \u201csystematic failure to perform duties\u201d be backed by prior disciplinary measures and proof that the person had a real chance to improve. A well-structured PIP checks all those boxes. Without one, a performance-based termination is on shaky legal ground.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\t\t\t
\r\n How often should I run performance reviews for a Belarusian IT team?<\/div>\r\n \r\n Quarterly. It\u2019s frequent enough to catch problems early and build a documentation trail, but not so frequent that it feels like micromanagement. Back it up with monthly one-on-ones and weekly standups for project stuff. Annual reviews on their own don\u2019t cut it \u2014 culturally or legally.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\t\t\t
\r\n Can I let go of an underperforming employee during their probation period?<\/div>\r\n \r\n Yes. Probation can last up to three months, and either side can end it with three days\u2019 notice. But even during probation, you should document specific performance issues. \u201cIt wasn\u2019t a fit\u201d won\u2019t hold up if the person challenges it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\t\t\t
\r\n How is giving feedback to Belarusian engineers different from US engineers?<\/div>\r\n \r\n American tech normalizes blunt, frequent feedback and treats a mediocre rating as no big deal. Belarusian engineers weigh formal feedback more heavily \u2014 a \u201c3 out of 5\u201d reads closer to a warning than a baseline. You can be just as honest. But keep it private, keep it specific, frame it around the work rather than the person, and whenever you can, phrase it as a question instead of a statement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\t\t\t
\r\n Does my EOR handle the PIP and termination, or do I?<\/div>\r\n \r\n You both do. The manager identifies the problem, has the conversations, documents everything, and runs the PIP. The EOR makes sure the process complies with Belarusian law, manages the formal paperwork, handles severance, and executes the termination if it gets there. Think of it as: you own the substance, they own the compliance. More on how that split works in our EOR vs. PEO comparison<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\t\t\t \r\n What severance do I owe if I terminate someone after a failed PIP?<\/div>\r\n \r\n At minimum, three average monthly salaries. The employment contract or a collective agreement might set a higher number. On top of that, any accrued leave and outstanding pay has to be settled on the last working day \u2014 not next payroll, not in two weeks. If you need to estimate the total cost, our salary benchmarks for Belarus IT<\/a> are a good starting point.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\t\t\t <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n
Monthly one-on-ones. <\/strong>Thirty minutes. Informal. Not a status update \u2014 that\u2019s what standups are for. This is where you find out that someone is frustrated with the architecture decisions being made above them, or burned out after a sprint crunch, or quietly thinking about leaving because nobody\u2019s talked to them about their career path in six months. Problems that show up in quarterly reviews as \u201cperformance issues\u201d very often started as things someone would have told you in a one-on-one if you\u2019d asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Weekly or biweekly standups <\/strong>for project-level stuff. Sprint retros, delivery updates, code review feedback. These are not performance reviews, and treating them like performance reviews confuses the signal and makes people defensive about the wrong things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why does quarterly beat annual? Because an engineer who hears \u201cyou\u2019ve been underperforming for a year\u201d has nowhere to go in that conversation. An engineer who hears \u201cthis quarter didn\u2019t land \u2014 let\u2019s figure out what happened and fix it\u201d has a path forward. That distinction matters everywhere, but it matters especially in a culture where formal negative feedback feels like a much bigger deal than Americans tend to realize.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here\u2019s a pattern we see constantly: a foreign manager has a Belarusian engineering team working remotely, relies on Slack and daily standups for communication, skips one-on-ones because \u201cwe talk every day anyway,\u201d and then is surprised when a performance problem seems to come out of nowhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Standups tell you what people are doing. One-on-ones tell you how people are feeling about what they\u2019re doing. That\u2019s a completely different signal, and you cannot get it from a group setting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A few things that make one-on-ones work with Belarusian teams specifically. Don\u2019t cancel them. Seriously. Canceling a one-on-one tells the engineer it\u2019s not important to you, and in a professional culture where relationships are taken seriously, that registers as a lack of respect. Let the engineer set the agenda first \u2014 you learn more when they pick the topics. Don\u2019t ambush people with critical feedback in a one-on-one; save that for the structured quarterly review where they can prepare too. And talk about their career. Where do they want to be in two years? What skills do they want to build? Belarusian engineers take professional growth seriously, and the one-on-one is where you show that you do too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you\u2019re managing a team through an EOR and don\u2019t have an internal HR function, Recruitment.by\u2019s HR consulting team<\/a> can help you set up these rhythms. It\u2019s not complicated, but having someone who knows the local professional culture makes the setup faster and the mistakes fewer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n This might be the most important section in this entire post. If you take one thing away, let it be this: do not put a Belarusian engineer on a formal PIP without having had at least two prior conversations about the issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n PIPs can occasionally emerge swiftly in US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When performance dips, the management notices it, HR develops a plan, and the employee receives a document. That cadence, applied to a Belarusian team, feels like a betrayal. The engineer’s internal reaction is: “You never informed me of a problem, and now I’m on a formal improvement plan? You were preparing a case against me. Even if it isn’t what happened, that’s how it appears.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before any formal PIP, honestly ask yourself: did I tell this person, clearly and specifically, what the problem is? Did I check whether something outside of work is going on \u2014 health, family, burnout? Did I actually offer help \u2014 not in a vague \u201clet me know if you need anything\u201d way, but specific help like training, workload adjustment, or pairing them with a stronger engineer on the area where they\u2019re struggling? Did I give them a real timeline to improve? And did I follow up?<\/p>\n\n\n\n If all of that happened and things didn\u2019t get better, then a PIP is the right next step. Research cited by RemoFirst<\/a> suggests that PIPs with real support behind them work about 60% of the time. But that number only holds when the employee genuinely believes the PIP is a chance to get back on track, not a paper trail for firing them. If you skipped the informal stage, you\u2019ve already told them which one it is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is where it gets real. If you\u2019re used to US at-will employment, you need to recalibrate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Belarusian labor law \u2014 specifically Article 42 of the Labour Code \u2014 doesn\u2019t have a \u201cpoor performance\u201d termination category the way American employment does. You can\u2019t just decide someone isn\u2019t working out and let them go. Grata International\u2019s legal analysis<\/a> spells it out: dismissal has to be based on specific statutory grounds. The closest one to \u201cperformance\u201d is \u201csystematic failure to perform duties without valid reason, where disciplinary measures have been applied previously.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Read that last part again: \u201cwhere disciplinary measures have been applied previously.\u201d Before you can take action, you must first establish a documented trail of warnings and improvement possibilities. A well-built PIP is that trail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What goes into a PIP that actually holds up? Specific performance gaps with dates and evidence \u2014 not \u201ctheir work has been below expectations\u201d but \u201cmissed delivery deadlines on three out of five sprint commitments in Q2, specifically on tickets X, Y, and Z.\u201d Clear improvement targets with a timeline \u2014 30, 60, or 90 days, depending on the situation. Real support: training, mentorship, adjusted workload. Weekly check-ins during the PIP so the engineer gets regular feedback, not silence followed by a verdict. Everything in writing. And the employee should sign or acknowledge receipt of the document.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What kills a PIP legally? Vague language. \u201cBad attitude\u201d and \u201cnot a culture fit\u201d are not enforceable under Belarusian law and will get shredded if this ever reaches a labor dispute. Punitive framing \u2014 if the PIP reads like a threat instead of a plan, it undermines the entire purpose. And issuing a PIP without prior informal feedback \u2014 legally weak and culturally tone-deaf.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the PIP ends and improvement didn\u2019t happen, the documentation gives you legal standing for termination. If you\u2019re employing through an EOR or PEO<\/a>, they handle the legal process \u2014 but the evidence has to come from you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So the PIP ran its course and things didn\u2019t improve. Now what?<\/p>\n\n\n\n You can proceed with termination, but only if the process was clean. Rivermate\u2019s termination guide for Belarus<\/a> lays out the mechanics: one month\u2019s notice minimum, severance of at least three average monthly salaries for employer-initiated dismissals, a written dismissal order, the employee\u2019s employment record book returned, and final settlement \u2014 including accrued leave \u2014 paid on the last working day. Not the next pay cycle. The last day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you\u2019re using an EOR, they execute the procedural steps. But they can\u2019t manufacture a documentation trail that doesn\u2019t exist. The quarterly reviews, the one-on-one notes, the PIP itself, the evidence that you offered support \u2014 that all has to come from the manager\u2019s side.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If things go wrong: insufficient documentation trail, bypassing the informal feedback stage prior to the PIP, attempting to terminate someone on maternity or child care leave (legally protected, period), and failing to engage the trade union if a collective agreement mandates it. Belarus\u2019s employment law framework<\/a> protects employees strongly against arbitrary dismissal. Courts can and do restore people, including back pay for the full time they were absent. That\u2019s not a theoretical risk. It happens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The takeaway is simple: build the documentation from day one. If your review process is running properly, the paper trail creates itself, and you never have to scramble to reconstruct it after the fact. If you\u2019re setting up employment in Belarus for the first time, Recruitment.by\u2019s payroll and EOR services<\/a> include compliance guidance for exactly these situations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These are the details that don\u2019t make it into management textbooks but make a real difference when you\u2019re leading a Belarusian engineering team.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Don\u2019t give tough feedback on Friday afternoon. <\/strong>The engineer goes into the weekend replaying the conversation, can\u2019t ask follow-up questions, and comes back Monday either resentful or anxious. Schedule hard conversations early in the week so there\u2019s time to talk through it while you\u2019re both still at work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Watch your framing. <\/strong>\u201cYou failed to meet the deadline\u201d and \u201cThe deadline slipped \u2014 what happened?\u201d get you to the same place. But the first one sounds like an accusation, and the second sounds like a conversation. With Belarusian engineers, that difference isn\u2019t subtle. It\u2019s the difference between someone who gets defensive and someone who actually tells you what went wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Turn your camera on. <\/strong>If you\u2019re doing a quarterly review or any serious feedback conversation over video, be on camera. A voice-only call for something that matters to the engineer\u2019s career says you didn\u2019t think it was worth showing up for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Send a written summary. <\/strong>Following each review or difficult conversation, provide a brief written summary. Belarusian professionals place a high priority on written documentation. It shows the conversation was real, not something that can be rewritten later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Be consistent. <\/strong>If one person gets quarterly reviews and another doesn\u2019t, people notice instantly. And they don\u2019t assume it\u2019s an oversight. They assume it\u2019s favoritism or targeting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Say thank you sometimes. <\/strong>Belarusian engineers aren\u2019t going to ask you for recognition. But they absolutely notice when it\u2019s missing. A message from the CTO after a strong quarter, a shoutout when someone solved a nasty bug, a note when a feature ships \u2014 it costs nothing, and it builds the kind of loyalty that a bigger paycheck somewhere else can\u2019t easily undo. If you want a fuller picture of what keeps Belarusian IT talent around, our guide to health insurance and wellness benefits<\/a> covers the structural side.<\/p>\n\n\n The law doesn\u2019t use the word \u201cPIP.\u201d But it does require that dismissal for \u201csystematic failure to perform duties\u201d be backed by prior disciplinary measures and proof that the person had a real chance to improve. A well-structured PIP checks all those boxes. Without one, a performance-based termination is on shaky legal ground.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\t\t\t Quarterly. It\u2019s frequent enough to catch problems early and build a documentation trail, but not so frequent that it feels like micromanagement. Back it up with monthly one-on-ones and weekly standups for project stuff. Annual reviews on their own don\u2019t cut it \u2014 culturally or legally.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\t\t\t Yes. Probation can last up to three months, and either side can end it with three days\u2019 notice. But even during probation, you should document specific performance issues. \u201cIt wasn\u2019t a fit\u201d won\u2019t hold up if the person challenges it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\t\t\t American tech normalizes blunt, frequent feedback and treats a mediocre rating as no big deal. Belarusian engineers weigh formal feedback more heavily \u2014 a \u201c3 out of 5\u201d reads closer to a warning than a baseline. You can be just as honest. But keep it private, keep it specific, frame it around the work rather than the person, and whenever you can, phrase it as a question instead of a statement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\t\t\t You both do. The manager identifies the problem, has the conversations, documents everything, and runs the PIP. The EOR makes sure the process complies with Belarusian law, manages the formal paperwork, handles severance, and executes the termination if it gets there. Think of it as: you own the substance, they own the compliance. More on how that split works in our EOR vs. PEO comparison<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\t\t\t At minimum, three average monthly salaries. The employment contract or a collective agreement might set a higher number. On top of that, any accrued leave and outstanding pay has to be settled on the last working day \u2014 not next payroll, not in two weeks. If you need to estimate the total cost, our salary benchmarks for Belarus IT<\/a> are a good starting point.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\t\t\t <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n One-on-Ones: The Tool Nobody Uses Enough<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nBefore the PIP: The Conversation You Can\u2019t Skip<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
PIPs in Belarus: What the Law Actually Says<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
When It\u2019s Over: How Termination Actually Works<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Small Things That Aren\u2019t Small<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\r\n