Building Trust & Driving Results: What Your Organisation Could Be Doing Wrong (and How We Fix It)

The Performance Management Paradox in Zimbabwe

In Zimbabwe, we often observe a paradox: organisations invest heavily in modern HR technology, yet employee trust in the performance review system (PRS) remains stubbornly low.

The truth is, a PRS fails not because the technology is poor, but because the process is perceived as unfair or opaque. Employees see the annual review as a stressful, subjective “judgment event”; a tick-box exercise designed to justify pre-determined salary decisions or terminations, rather than a genuine opportunity for growth. This is the difference between a system built on suspicion versus one built on partnership.

Understanding that fixing performance management is not an HR task; it’s a strategic necessity rooted in Organisational Justice is key to implementing an effective performance management system. A good PRS addresses two core pain points: Procedural Justice (fairness of the process) and Informational Justice (clarity of the communication).

What Your Organisation is Could Be Doing Wrong 

Four critical design flaws repeatedly undermining the credibility of local performance systems:

1. Subjectivity Rules: The Vague KPI Problem

Goals like "Improve efficiency" or "Enhance communication" are unmeasurable. When KPIs are vague, the manager’s personal opinion, not objective data becomes the basis for the rating. This creates a toxic environment where employees feel they are being judged arbitrarily. The star performer who is disliked by the manager gets a low rating, while the average performer who is favoured gets a high one. Bias replaces objectivity

2. The Annual "Surprise" 

Managers wait 11 months, fail to document any feedback, and then rely on memory (or the last major project) to give a rating. This is the Recency Bias in full effect. The employee is blindsided by issues they were never coached on. The review becomes a confrontational, backward-looking appraisal instead of a forward-looking developmental conversation. This destroys psychological safety and makes employees dread the process. Research by Machingambi and others in 2015 shows that this lack of training and resource provision has been cited as a major obstacle in Zimbabwean PMS.

3. Inconsistent Standards Across Departments

A rating in the Finance Department requires Herculean effort, while the same rating in Operations is given for basic task completion. There is no standardisation. High performers transfer or quit because they feel their efforts are unequally rewarded compared to colleagues in other teams. The entire system is perceived as fundamentally unjust and unequal.

4. The Black Box Reward Linkage

The organisation states that rewards (bonus, promotion) are "performance-based," but the formula for how a rating translates into money or career progression is kept secret or is applied erratically. When transparency is missing, employees fill the vacuum with cynicism and mistrust. They conclude that promotion or bonuses are political, not performance-driven, eliminating the incentive to excel.

How Lorimak Africa Engineers Fairness 

Our consulting focus is to shift the system from an administrative burden to a strategic engine for accountability and growth. We implement the following non-negotiable steps:

1. Implement the Continuous Coaching Model

We eliminate the annual surprise by training managers to shift to a coaching mindset.

Mandate and track monthly 1:1 "Check-in Conversations." These are 30-minute, forward-looking sessions documented in a digital Performance Log. This log provides the necessary audit trail of objective evidence throughout the year, killing Recency Bias. The importance of continuous feedback is key to improving procedural justice perceptions (Jawahar, 2007).

2. Design Defendable KPIs and Rating Scales

We work with departmental heads to design KPIs that are not just SMART but are also Strategically Aligned (linked to the business plan) and Easy to Audit. We install clear, observable definitions for every rating level (e.g., defining a '4' not only by what was achieved, but how in terms of leadership and initiative). This promotes Informational Justice by clarifying the rules upfront.

3. Institutionalise the Calibration Session 

This is the single most powerful step to ensure Procedural Justice across the entire organisation. We design and facilitate mandatory meetings where managers from different departments discuss and defend their proposed ratings before they are delivered to employees. This panel identifies and corrects rater bias, guaranteeing that a 'Top Performer' standard is consistent organisation-wide. This practice helps ensure due process principles are followed (Folger et al., 1992, cited in Heslin & Vande Walle, 2011).

4. Leverage HR Technology as the Equaliser

Fairness requires data. We help organisations select and integrate the right HR tech (whether global platforms or efficient local solutions like TeamUp or HRWorks Africa). Digital tracking provides employees real-time visibility into their own progress, goals, and accumulated feedback. This transparency prevents information asymmetry and provides HR with the objective data needed for pay and succession planning decisions.

Conclusion: Performance as a Partnership

The success stories of local leaders like Delta Corporation confirm that a high-trust performance culture is achievable in Zimbabwe. Delta Corporation's stability and clear operational efficiency, for example, are reflective of strong systems aligning operational goals with individual accountability (Mahanzu, 2017). They understood that you cannot drive high performance with a low-trust system.

At Lorimak Africa, we partner with organisations to transform performance reviews from an event of anxiety and suspicion into a culture of accountability, clarity, and partnership. Our customised approach ensures your investment in performance management yields not just better paperwork, but genuinely better people and better business results.

It's time your performance system started working for your strategic goals, not against your people.

References

• Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.
• Heslin, P. A., & VandeWalle, D. (2011). Performance Appraisal Procedural Justice: The Role of a Manager's Implicit Person Theory. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1694-1718.
• Jawahar, I. M. (2007). The influence of fairness perceptions on satisfaction with the performance appraisal system and performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology.
• Machingambi, S., Maphosa, C., & Ndofirepi, A. T. (2015). Perceived Challenges of Implementing the Performance Management System in Zimbabwe. Journal of Social Science, 42(3), 261-269.
• Mahanzu, M. (2017). An assessment of product performance analysis on the overall cooperate performance: a case of Delta Corporation Limited. (Unpublished MBA Thesis). Midlands State University.
• Palaiologos, I., Papazekos, P., & Panayotopoulou, H. (2011). Organisational justice and employee satisfaction in performance appraisal. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 11(1/2), 86-98.