How to Build a Self-Managing Organization (Part 3) | Reasonable Accommodation is a Matter of Design

— Kindness alone cannot sustain an organization

“How much accommodation should we provide?”
This is a question I often hear from those in charge of disability employment.

They have the desire to be kind.
But where does accommodation end and special treatment begin?
How much of the individual's requests should be granted?
How much can we ask of the workplace?

This is a valid question.
But it is also a question that is difficult to answer.

Having observed over 200 workplaces, what I feel is that
in many organizations where reasonable accommodation fails,
it is not because there is a lack of kindness.
There is no design for decision-making. That is the real reason.

The challenges of disability employment cannot be solved by looking only at how we treat the individual.
We need to look at what is being judged and how it is being operated
among the individual, HR, the workplace, management, and the system.

What I am looking at is not just the content of the accommodation.
It is how the accommodation is judged, shared, and sustained within the organization.

Reasonable accommodation is not about kindness, but about decision design

The term "reasonable accommodation" is one that is easily misunderstood.
It is sometimes interpreted as "listening to the individual's wishes and responding as much as possible." But that alone does not function within an organization.

Even for the same request, the response differs depending on the supervisor.
The judgment changes when the person in charge changes.
When the workplace gets busy, accommodation is put on the back burner.
The individual also becomes unsure of "how much they are allowed to ask for."

Adapting to each person is different from having judgments change with every person in charge.
Reasonable accommodation is not about doing exactly what the individual wants.
It is about organizing the background of the individual's difficulties,
and thinking about what adjustments in work tasks will make it easier for them to participate.

Reasonable accommodation must be thought of not as individual goodwill, but as a decision design operated by the organization. What is needed here is translation.

It is not about granting the individual's wishes as they are.
It is about organizing the background of the individual's difficulties and changing them into work-related terms.
And then, changing them into judgments that can be operated in the workplace.

If you proceed with accommodation without this translation, the individual's wishes easily become
“requests that the workplace doesn't know how to handle.”
On the other hand, the workplace's confusion easily becomes
an experience of “not being understood” for the individual.

In the workplace, accommodation becomes "adjustments for working"

There is one more important perspective.
In welfare settings, there are times when the individual is viewed as a "recipient of support."
But in the workplace, the individual is a member of the organization.
They are a worker who carries out tasks, interacts with colleagues, and contributes to the organization.
In the workplace, we need to look at the individual's difficulties alongside the role they play, the tasks they are entrusted with, their interactions within the team, and the results required by the organization.

If you look only at the individual's difficulties, accommodation easily becomes something you "do for them."
If you look only at the workplace's convenience, accommodation is easily treated as a "burden."
It is not about one or the other; we need to think about
what to adjust so that the individual can fulfill their role as a worker.

Accommodation is not for removing tasks.
It is for setting the conditions to participate in work.
Reasonable accommodation cannot be established from the individual's perspective alone or the workplace's perspective alone. If you judge from only one perspective, the accommodation will be biased.

Three gaps that occur in the workplace

Organizations where reasonable accommodation does not go well have similar gaps.

Gap 1 | The individual's wishes and work-related necessities are not organized
The individual says, "I cannot handle phone calls."
The workplace accepts this, saying, "Understood."
But it is not organized which tasks they can do, which part of phone handling is difficult, or what the alternatives are.

As a result, those around them cover for them in a vague way.
The individual also feels apologetic.
An atmosphere of "isn't this special treatment?" emerges in the workplace.
The problem is not that you accommodated them.
It is that the reason and scope of the accommodation have not been put into words.

Reasonable accommodation is not something you do for a disability name.
It is about thinking of necessary adjustments for work-related difficulties.

Gap 2 | HR thinks they have accommodated, but the workplace cannot operate it
HR hears about the individual's difficulties during hiring or interviews.
They are aware of things like "a quiet environment is needed," "instructions are better in writing than orally," and "difficulty with sudden changes."
But it is not designed how that will be operated in the workplace.

Who will put the instructions into writing?
When there is a change, who conveys it and at what timing?
When a workplace manager is unsure, where do they consult?
Hearing about accommodation items and making them ready for operation in the workplace are different things.

Treating personal information with care and
keeping it in a state where necessary people cannot make judgments are not the same.
A design is needed to share information necessary for work with the necessary people in the necessary scope, while respecting the individual's intentions.


Gap 3 | The person in charge is holding the judgment of accommodation aloneConsultations come from the individual. Consultations also come from the workplace.
The supervisor says, "You decide in HR."
The person in charge tries to do something for both the individual and the workplace.
But because there are no judgment criteria, they have no choice but to decide based on their own experience and intuition every time.
The more excellent the person in charge is, the more the accommodation becomes personalized.

It works while that person is there. But it does not become the organization's strength.
This situation is often seen.

If information does not reach, accommodation is not received as accommodation

In reasonable accommodation, there are times when accommodation cannot be operated because necessary information does not reach the workplace. Along with that, there is one more thing that is easily overlooked. It is the problem that the intention of the accommodation is not reaching the individual.

In disability employment settings, there are cases where the individual feels they are "not being accommodated." But when you listen in detail, the workplace side is not failing to accommodate at all. In fact, they may have decided on the placement and way of interacting after quite a lot of thought.

For example, there are times when employees with disabilities are placed in the same department.
The workplace side thinks, wouldn't it be reassuring to have someone nearby who is easy to consult with?
Wouldn't people with similar experiences be
more likely to speak up when they are in trouble?
They place them thinking that.

But if that intention is not explained to the individuals themselves, the perception changes.
“Are we being separated?”
“Are we not being allowed into the circle of other employees?”
Even if the workplace side has the intention of accommodation, if it is not conveyed to the individual,
it can look like exclusion to the individual.

The problem is not that you accommodated them.
It is that the intention and reason for the accommodation have not been put into words.
It is not that either side is bad. The information they see is different.

Accommodation is not something that is understood just by implementing it.
Why are you taking that action?
For which difficulty are you adjusting what?
What kind of merit do you think there is for the individual?
If that is not put into words, the accommodation will be a mismatch.

That is why reasonable accommodation requires translation.
Translate the individual's difficulties into work-related terms.
Translate the workplace's intention for accommodation into words that reach the individual.
Translate the workplace's confusion into operational challenges.
If you proceed without this translation, accommodation can sometimes become a spark for conflict.

Of course, it is not always the case that it leads to such conflict.
However, both sides are judging only based on the information they see. As a result, the workplace's efforts and the individual's difficulties end up not connecting within the organization.

It is not that there is a lack of accommodation, but that the meaning of the accommodation is not reaching.
Such mismatches are happening over and over in the workplace.

The workplace side is thinking about how the individual can work with peace of mind.
The individual, without knowing that intention, feels "separated."
The workplace, without knowing the background of the individual's difficulties,
is lost, wondering "how far should we respond?"

Each is judging naturally within the information they see.
But if that information is not connected, the accommodation will be a mismatch.
Therefore, in reasonable accommodation, it is essential to put into words not just what you do,
but why you do it.

When reasonable accommodation becomes personalized, no one can be protected

When reasonable accommodation becomes personalized, it is not only the individual who is troubled.
The individual does not know "how much they are allowed to consult."
The workplace does not know "how much they should respond."
HR does not know "how much they should ask of the workplace."
Management does not know "is this accommodation or work-related guidance?"
Those around them do not know "why that response is being taken."

When reasonable accommodation becomes a problem,
in most cases, there is an absence of judgment criteria.
Just lining up each person's "rightness" does not become an answer as an organization. The individual's difficulties, the workplace's tasks, HR's systems, management's responsibilities.
A design is needed to connect these, look at the whole, and make judgments.

Three questions for operating in an organization

The first is, "In which work situations are the difficulties occurring?"
It is important not to think too much from the "disability name."
Look at in which work situations the difficulties are occurring.

Oral instructions are easily missed.
It is easy to get confused by sudden schedule changes.
It is hard to concentrate when there is noise.
It is hard to set priorities when instructions are vague.

For each of these situations, think about what adjustments will make it easier to participate.
What you should look at is not the diagnosis name itself,
but in which work situations what is becoming difficult.

The second is, "What can be changed to make the work proceed?"
If oral instructions are difficult, leave instructions in writing.
If sudden changes are difficult, decide how to convey them when changes occur.
If fatigue is likely to occur, review the workload or how breaks are taken.

Accommodation is not about removing tasks.
It is about setting conditions so that it is easier to participate in work.

The third is, "Who will operate it, and how?"
Even if the individual and HR agree, it will not function if it is not operated in the workplace.
What should be decided is who will confirm with the individual. Who will share it with the workplace.
When management is lost, who do they consult?
When the accommodation no longer fits, when will it be reviewed?

Reasonable accommodation does not end the moment you decide it.
It is something you review while operating it.

When you are lost between "accommodation" and "special treatment"

In the workplace, such confusion arises.
“Is this accommodation, or is it special treatment?”
“If we respond this far, won't those around us be dissatisfied?”
“How far should we adapt for the individual's sake?”

If you think about this line-drawing with emotion, it becomes painful. The kinder the person, the more they carry. Those who look strictly feel it is "spoiling." Judgment splits depending on the person.
Therefore, think with criteria, not emotion.

Will that adjustment make it easier for the individual to participate in work?
Is that adjustment connected to the work-related purpose?
Is that adjustment sustainable as an organization?
The line between accommodation and special treatment is not about whether it is kind or strict,
but whether it is an adjustment to participate in work.

Do not entrust reasonable accommodation to the kindness of the person in charge

Reasonable accommodation does not deny kindness.
Rather, design is necessary to make kindness function within the organization.
Listen to the individual's difficulties. Break them down into work-related situations. Think about necessary adjustments. Decide who will operate it and how. And when it no longer fits, review it.
Only when it is organized to that extent does reasonable accommodation become an organizational strength, rather than an individual response by the person in charge.

Disability employment is not determined by the amount of accommodation.
It is determined by how you judge and how you operate the accommodation.
Reasonable accommodation is translating the individual's difficulties into judgments that can be operated by the organization.
Translate the individual's wishes into work-related terms. Translate the workplace's intention for accommodation into words that reach the individual. Translate the workplace's confusion into operational challenges.
Only with that translation does reasonable accommodation become a mechanism that can be operated by the organization, rather than an individual response by the person in charge.

In your organization,
who makes decisions regarding reasonable accommodation, and based on what criteria?
Will those decisions remain consistent even if the person in charge changes?

If decisions are articulated in words, accommodation becomes something the organization can manage, rather than relying on the intuition of an individual staff member. First, put into words "in which work situations are difficulties occurring?" From there, reasonable accommodation begins to shift from individual responses to decisions that can be operated by the organization.

Translate the individual's difficulties into the language of the organization.

Starting from that step, reasonable accommodation evolves from individual responses by staff into an organizational system.

Articles in this series

1. [How to Build a Self-Propelled Organization (1) | The True Nature of Organizations That Create "Subordinates Who Ask About Everything"
2.[How to Build a Self-Propelled Organization (2) | Because You Are Trying Hard, the Organization Won't Change
3.[How to Build a Self-Propelled Organization (3) | Reasonable Accommodation is a Matter of Design
4. [How to Build a Self-Propelled Organization (4) | Why Well-Intentioned Accommodations Stopped Working
5. How to Build a Self-Propelled Organization (5) | Employment of People with Disabilities is a Mirror of the Organization

#CreativeAwards2026 #BusinessCategory #EmploymentOfPeopleWithDisabilities #ReasonableAccommodation #OrganizationalDesign #DecisionDesign #HR #DEI #DiversityManagement #SelfPropelledOrganization