Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) that are rolled out without commensurable training, mentorship or structured follow-ups are not instruments of growth; they are carefully disguised mechanisms of failure. They carry the language of support but are driven by the logic of punishment. In many institutions, especially schools, the PIP has lost its developmental soul and become a bureaucratic weapon – clean on paper, brutal in practice.
At its core, a Performance Improvement Plan should answer one honest question: what support does this individual need to perform better? Unfortunately, most PIPs begin from a different premise altogether: how do we document inadequacy? The moment a PIP is conceived as evidence rather than intervention, its outcome is predetermined. The staff member is already guilty; the process is merely gathering exhibits.
Improvement is not summoned by deadlines and signatures. It is cultivated through capacity building. When a teacher is placed on a PIP for weak learner outcomes, poor classroom management, or instructional gaps, the ethical responsibility of leadership is to interrogate systems before indicting the individual. Was the teacher adequately trained for the curriculum? Were they mentored during induction? Were they observed and coached before performance dipped? In many cases, the answer is no. The PIP then becomes an attempt to correct institutional neglect through individual punishment.
ALSO READ:
KNEC warns public against scammers offering to alter KCSE grades
Training is not a decorative add-on to a PIP; it is foundational. You cannot demand competence in strategies that have never been taught. Expecting improvement without training is like demanding harvest from unplanted soil. Yet many organisations list expectations that require advanced skills while offering no structured learning opportunities to develop those skills. Generic workshops, if they come at all, are often misaligned with the specific gaps identified in the PIP. This disconnect turns the plan into an exercise in frustration rather than growth.
Mentorship is equally non-negotiable. Real improvement is relational before it is procedural. A struggling staff member does not need surveillance; they need guidance. They need someone experienced to model best practice, observe without judgment, correct with clarity, and encourage with honesty. In schools, this is particularly critical. Teaching is complex, contextual, and deeply human. A PIP that does not include coaching cycles, lesson demonstrations, co-planning sessions, or reflective conversations is fundamentally incomplete. It asks the teacher to self-correct in isolation, a demand that borders on professional cruelty.
Structured follow-ups are the third missing pillar in most failed PIPs. Follow-up should not be a sporadic inspection designed to catch mistakes. It should be a predictable, transparent, and developmental process. When follow-ups are irregular or purely evaluative, anxiety replaces reflection. The staff member begins to perform defensively, focusing on avoiding mistakes rather than improving practice. In education settings, this fear inevitably spills into the classroom, affecting learner engagement and outcomes. Learners pay the price for leadership shortcuts.
The absence of support also reveals a deeper contradiction. Institutions claim they value improvement, yet they are unwilling to invest the time, money, and leadership energy required to make improvement possible. A genuine PIP is expensive. It demands classroom observations, coaching sessions, professional development resources, reduced workloads in some cases, and constant dialogue. If an organisation is unwilling to make this investment, it should abandon the pretence of development and be honest about its intentions.
ALSO READ:
In many private and public schools alike, PIPs are deployed selectively and inconsistently. Some staff members are supported generously, while others are documented aggressively. This inconsistency erodes trust and fuels perceptions of bias. The PIP becomes less about performance and more about power. It signals who is protected and who is expendable. In such environments, morale collapses, and mediocrity thrives, because innovation requires psychological safety, not perpetual threat.
It is also important to acknowledge that poor performance is sometimes real and persistent. Not every PIP is unjustified. However, even in such cases, fairness demands that institutions exhaust developmental options before pursuing punitive outcomes. Termination should be the last resort, not the quiet objective of the process. When PIPs are used as exit strategies, they poison organisational culture and teach remaining staff a dangerous lesson: compliance matters more than growth, silence matters more than reflection.
For educational leaders, the implications are profound. Schools exist to nurture potential, not just in learners but in staff. A leadership culture that abandons teachers at the first sign of struggle will inevitably fail learners as well. You cannot model a growth mindset to students while practising a deficit mindset with teachers. The contradiction is too loud to ignore.
Ultimately, poorly designed and poorly supported Performance Improvement Plans do not expose weak employees. They expose weak systems and insecure leadership. They reveal institutions more interested in documentation than development, more comfortable with control than coaching. If improvement is truly the goal, then training, mentorship, and structured follow-ups must be embedded, resourced, and protected. Anything less is not an improvement plan. It is a setup for failure, dressed in professional language and signed in good faith, but destined to betray the very purpose it claims to serve.
By Ashford Kimani
Ashford teaches English and Literature in Gatundu North Sub-county and serves as Dean of Studies.
You can also follow our social media pages on Twitter: Education News KE and Facebook: Education News Newspaper for timely updates.
>>> Click here to stay up-to-date with trending regional stories
>>> Click here to read more informed opinions on the country’s education landscape
