A former Microsoft Africa Development Centre employee has raised concerns over what he describes as a troubling pattern in the handling of recent employee exits at the technology company’s Kenya operations, stating that several workers were given a choice between entering a Performance Improvement Plan or accepting what was presented as a “voluntary” exit.
Kipkorir Arap Kirui, who identifies himself as a former Director of Consulting at iHub and a former Microsoft employee, said he decided to speak publicly after talking to several employees affected by the recent exits.
He says the accounts he heard pointed to a similar pattern emerging toward the end of the third quarter, with employees who had performed well earlier in the year suddenly being placed under performance scrutiny.
Kirui says the concerns are particularly significant in Kenya because employment law provides procedures governing genuine redundancies. He argues that the way the exits are being handled raises questions about whether performance management processes are being used in circumstances that employees may perceive differently from ordinary performance improvement.
In his account, Kirui identifies three practices that he believes deserve scrutiny, beginning with what he describes as sudden Performance Improvement Plans.
1. The sudden PIPs Engineers and staff who met or exceeded expectations through Q1 and Q2 were abruptly told in Q3 that they were underperforming. As former President Mwai Kibaki famously asked, "How can you suddenly become very clever?" The inverse applies here: how does a solid performer suddenly become incompetent overnight?
Kirui says the employees affected had, according to the accounts he received, met or exceeded expectations during the first and second quarters before being told in the third quarter that their performance was inadequate. He questions how employees who had been considered successful earlier in the year could suddenly find themselves facing performance concerns.
He also raises questions over the period given to employees placed on the reported PIPs, saying those who chose to challenge the process were given six weeks to demonstrate improvement.
2. The 6-week timeline Those who opted to fight the PIP were given just six weeks to turn things around. In complex engineering environments, six weeks is rarely enough to demonstrate meaningful structural turnaround. It reads less like support and more like reverse-engineering documentation to justify a predetermined exit.
A third concern raised by Kirui relates to employees considering voluntary separation packages. He says that some employees were told that the draft agreements could only be shared with a spouse and that they could not have them reviewed by an independent advocate or lawyer before signing.
3. Restricting independent legal advice Employees considering the voluntary separation packages were reportedly told the draft agreement could only be shared with a spouse—strictly forbidding review by an independent advocate or lawyer. Restricting an employee’s right to independent legal counsel before signing away their employment rights is predatory. To the legal community: how does this hold up under Kenyan labor law?
Kirui says the developments also reminded him of his own redundancy at Microsoft ADC in 2023. He says that at the time, he felt local leadership did little to challenge decisions coming from the company's headquarters and that directives were accepted and passed down. He further says employees who pushed back collectively were able to avoid what he describes as dismal terms, including redundancy notices that were timed in a way that affected the vesting of that quarter's stock.
According to Kirui, the concern now is that a similar approach could once again be unfolding, with local leadership placing emphasis on carrying out decisions smoothly rather than advocating for employees affected by them.
We are seeing the same playbook unfold again: site leadership prioritizing seamless execution over standing up for their people.”
He acknowledges that companies may need to adjust their workforce as business conditions change, but argues that the way such changes are handled matters to employees who are leaving and those who remain. He says the consequences extend beyond questions about employment law, pointing to the psychological impact that sudden performance concerns can have on experienced professionals.
Companies must adjust headcounts as markets shift, but disguised redundancies carry a severe cost. Beyond the legal questions, the psychological toll is immense. While seasoned professionals may recognize a manufactured PIP for what it is, many others internalize it—doubting their technical ability and carrying unwarranted imposter syndrome into their next roles.”
The discussion has also attracted reactions from people identifying themselves as former or current members of the wider Microsoft ADC community. One former employee said their final days at ADC had been extremely difficult and expressed disappointment over what they described as the direction the organisation had taken compared with its earlier years.
To my former colleagues, I stand with you through these difficult days.I joined ADC in its early days and witnessed its first local leadership build a strong culture, a great ecosystem, while advocating for meaningful projects.
My final days at ADC were extremely difficult and it is painful to see how far ADC has moved from what was originally envisioned. Wishing you all strength and better days ahead.
Another commenter said the concerns demonstrate why conversations about workplace treatment should extend beyond individual companies, pointing to an upcoming event focused on corporate bullying, employment rights and the impact of workplace power imbalances.
This is exactly why I think these conversations need to extend beyond individual companies.
C Level is hosting an event this November centred on corporate bullying, because many of us have experienced situations where the power imbalance at work makes it difficult to know where to turn.
We’ll have an employment lawyer walk us through our rights and the protections available to employees, followed by a C Level coach unpacking the impact of workplace bullying — and, importantly, how we begin to work through it, heal and thrive beyond the experience.
We’ll then have peer-led knowledge sharing, creating space for people to share experiences and practical lessons, before ending the day on a lighter note.
It’s about moving from “this happened to me” to understanding our rights, learning from each other and rebuilding confidence.
Kirui's post has therefore opened a wider conversation around how large technology companies handle workforce reductions, performance management and separation agreements, particularly where employees believe that a performance process may be connected to an eventual exit.
One commenter specifically pointed to Sections 40, 41, 45 and 47 of Kenya's Employment Act, as well as constitutional protections relating to human dignity and fair labour practices, in urging affected workers to understand the legal framework governing employment disputes.
Refer to Employment Act of Kenya, section 41, 40,45,47. Constitution of Kenya section 28,41 Fair Labor practices and human Dignity. It’s that Simple. Our Labor courts work. Also remember, you are leaving with knowledge… what can you co-create with like minded people.. it’s never the end of the world.
For Kirui, the issue eventually comes down to how an organisation treats employees when their relationship with the company is coming to an end.
True leadership is measured by how you treat people on their way out, not just while they are driving your metrics.”
Here are some of the quotes from the conversation on what is happening at Microsoft Kenya.
This is terrible. As you rightly pointed out, it needs to be defended by the people who can challenge HQ. As someone who has worked at big tech, the issue is always the politics of layered leadership. Maybe an employee-led association of sorts? Feeling it for my MS brothers and sisters.
To the best of my knowledge, this is where the grey area is. Kenyan employment law does provide strong protections around termination for poor performance, but the law does not prescribe the specific mechanics of a PIP — including a mandatory minimum duration.
So a six-week PIP is not necessarily illegal simply because it is six weeks.
The issue is whether the process meets the broader requirements of Kenyan law: the performance concerns should be objectively established and communicated, the employee should have a genuine and reasonable opportunity to improve, and they should be heard before termination. Kenyan courts have previously referred to 2–3 months as a reasonable period in appropriate circumstances.
So I think the gap is between strong legal principles and the lack of detailed statutory rules governing PIPs themselves. That leaves room for interpretation — and potentially for power imbalances to be exploited, particularly where employees don't know what protections they actually have.
𝐼 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑤𝑎𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑎𝑦 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑤𝑎𝑠ℎ 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑀𝑖𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑜𝑓𝑡 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑦𝑒𝑒 𝑏𝑎𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑠. 𝑇ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑦. 𝑆𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑢𝑠𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑏𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑡.
𝑇ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ-𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 40 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐸𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐴𝑐𝑡, 2007 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑒. 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡: 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛'𝑡 𝑚𝑒𝑡, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑟, 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑙𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑏𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑖𝑛𝑒. 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑠 𝑚𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛.
It's an open secret that a PIP is often used by companies to try look legally compliant in their attempt to fire an employee. Plus it's also cheaper for them ie outright termination over paid redundancy. It is never about helping the employee at all.
That said, there exists a third option here.. Fight the PIP. Refuse to entertain that conversation at all. Ask them to prove why they want to put you on PIP. Ask them to show you who complained about your performance and when and when they actually reached out with their grievance. Document everything single thing. The labour laws in Kenya do protect the employee. It's usually upto the employer to prove that they gave the employee a chance to correct their shortcomings before firing them. A PIP is always a last resort. Get yourself a lawyer.
No one deserves the mental anguish that comes with being made to doubt their expertise and capabilities. For the ones innocently targeted, that feeling doesn't just pass - it makes you doubt the same skills and competence that got you hired for the job and retained for all those years. Please remember that most PIPs are driven by selfish reasons. Sorry to the folks who are finding themselves in the midst of this.