Online Reporter
Employee Relations-Dr Request Machimbira
EVERY organisation wants to run like a well-oiled machine.
Key performance indicators are set, processes are standardised and leaders demand consistency.
The goal is clear: maximum output, minimum friction. However, the moment you put real people into the machine, the illusion of uniformity breaks. Humans do not distribute themselves evenly.
If you plotted employee performance across any department, you would see the familiar bell curve: a small percentage at the top, producing disproportionate value; a larger middle group performing adequately; and another tail at the bottom struggling to meet baseline expectations.
The education system understands this better than most corporations. Every school has a “special needs” class. Not because those learners are unwanted, but because they require a different instructional approach to access the same learning outcomes. The curriculum does not change, but the method does: more scaffolding, more repetition, more coaching, more time.
The same logic applies in organisations and departments. There are always employees who need a different approach to reach expected performance.
Ignoring them does not make them disappear. It just pushes the problem underground, where it manifests as errors, disengagement and turnover.
“Special needs” refers to employees whose path to competence requires structured, intentional support beyond what a standard onboarding or performance plan provides.
Examples include:
Cognitive load limits: Employees with lower baseline IQ or processing speed who can perform well in structured, repetitive roles but falter in ambiguous, multitasking environments.
Experience gaps: High-potential graduates or career changers who lack industry exposure but have the right attitude and learning agility.
Neurodiversity: Employees with autism spectrum traits or dyslexia who bring deep focus or pattern recognition in niche areas but struggle with conventional communication or time management.
Situational disadvantage: Long-tenured staff who were never properly trained, or employees returning after prolonged absence, who are out of step with current systems and expectations.
These are not people who refuse to work. They are people whose interface with the work system is mismatched. Labelling them “poor performers” and applying standard disciplinary escalation is not a solution.
Most disciplinary codes are designed for misconduct, not misfit. A final warning assumes intent, wilful negligence or insubordination. But for a special needs employee, poor performance is often a signal of missing capability, unclear expectations or inadequate feedback loops.
Giving a final warning in this context is a misaligned intervention. It punishes the symptom and ignores the cause. Worse, it is often perceived as reckless and vindictive, destroying trust not only with the individual but across the team.
The right intervention is structured support: clear task breakdowns, visual aids, job aids, reduced cognitive load, regular check-ins and skill-based coaching.
The goal is to move the employee from dependence to competence, not to document them out of the organisation.
Managers must become performance enablers
The single biggest leverage point is the line manager. Yet most managers are promoted for technical skill, not for their ability to develop others. Their default mode becomes task allocation and compliance checking. When results do not come, they escalate the matter to the human resources (HR) department, write angry emails in red capitals and push for disciplinary action.
The actual duty of a manager is to enable the performance of their team. That means diagnosing why someone is not performing, removing blockers, modelling the behaviour and coaching until the skill is internalised.
Dr Request Machimbira is the executive director of Proficiency Consulting Group and the International Wellness Institute. For feedback, email request @proficiencyinternational.com or phone +263772693404.
Coaching is not a soft HR initiative. It is the operating system of performance enablement. This requires investment.
Organisations must train supervisors and managers in coaching skills: active listening, powerful questioning, giving specific feedback and holding people accountable without humiliating them. Without this, you are asking people to lead with only authority and no influence.
So ask yourself: Are your managers functioning as performance enablers? Or are they mere taskmasters, acting as spirit mediums for the CEO’s wrath?
If your organisation does not have a coaching and mentorship policy, it is not serious about enabling performance.
A policy gives managers permission and a framework to coach, and it gives employees a right to be developed, not just managed.
* Dr Request Machimbira is the executive director of Proficiency Consulting Group and International Wellness Institute. He is a leading, multi-award-winning human resources expert, strategy facilitator, board trainer, team-building coach, wellness consultant, independent labour arbitrator, board chairperson and published author. He writes in his personal capacity. For feedback, email [email protected] or phone +263772693404.
