This time, Inamori demonstrated how the communications in a company should be: be straightforward, regardless of titles and positions, discuss issues and problems thoroughly in an appropriate manner. He talked to Seiwajuku workshop members as follows.

“To get the job done responsibly, it is necessary for the people involved in the job to be straightforward in discussing issues and problems. Instead of reading between the lines or guessing the intentions of others, we must constantly and seriously discuss things based on “what the right practices are”. Don’t be afraid of pointing out the issues and problems, even though it becomes a sort of argument. Of course, unnecessary conflicts are not always welcomed, but sometimes we need to have huge but serious arguments or discussions in our company. The mutual trust is sometimes developed through such a serious interaction. The trust facilitates our collaborations in completing our tasks and jobs.

In large companies, people can get promoted by so-called “apple polishing”. Those guys who are smart and good at pleasing supervisors, even though they hide their honest opinions, can well survive under the harsh competition among colleagues. However, in small to middle companies, the company itself must survive every day, so such indirect communication never works in a small- to- middle size company. If you want to grow the company, you must be honest and straightforward in communication and interactions. That said, I don’t think this is something that can be done easily.”

Mr. Inamori cites the following reasons why we should be straightforward.

1 The top management tends to overlook the issues and problems, until it becomes a serious issue.

2 In some cases, the truth is hidden under the humanistic mindset, which later becomes a very big problem for a team.

 

“We really need to be straightforward in communicating with each other so that such issues never happen. It is necessary to share the truth and discuss the issues thoroughly.” Inamori emphasized again.

I think there are two things to keep in mind when we get straightforward in talking about issues.

1        With the intention of “For the sake of everyone.”

2        Think twice, who are you about to please?

 

Let me explain one by one.

1        With the intention of “For the sake of everyone.”

Mr. Inamori continued as follows.

“However, there are rules even if you argue with your colleagues. First, you should never blame or insult your colleagues. Even if you talk about the fact with some proof, you should never do it. The argument should be raised based on the intention: for the sake of everyone”. The dialogue must be a constructive and positive discussion. If the nature of the argument is positive and people have such a mindset, you should be able to come to a creative conclusion. “

2, Think twice, who are you about to please?

This is like No. 1, but it describes a much deeper sense than it was demonstrated under the context of No.1.

Even if you say “I am telling you because it is for the sake of everyone”, it may sometimes imply hypocritical intentions.
Also, sometimes people are driven by the following desires or intentions.
To demonstrate your rightness or to satisfy your sense of justice
To simply minimize your anxiety or put yourself on the safest side.
Not to lose your face or just protect your position.

Before telling the truth, I think it’s good to think twice, who am I going to please.
Am I about to please colleagues, clients, customers, or myself?

This is a sort of training. We should get used to thinking on a regular basis: ask ourselves.

To whom, are you going to do this?
Who is ultimately pleased?
Does your action come from your hypocritic mind?
Why are you demonstrating this, do you want to just feel relieved?
Are you demonstrating your logic simply due to protecting your position?

 

Before being straightforward, I must think about the above questions.

Additionally, if we check our intentions by ourselves, our straightforward discussion would become more productive.

I always ask myself those questions and double check whether it is necessary to argue with my colleagues or not.

Does telling the truth look like a sort of metaphor that you lie to yourself?
In other words, are you pretending to be a so called “yes man” by hiding your honest mindset?
Who are you acting for?
Are you acting only for your benefit, not for others?
Isn’t it hypocrisy?

 

Thinking twice and asking those questions ourselves may work to change staff’s mind sets and improve our performances.

 

Further queries or doubts, please email to ytomizuka@abrilsjp.com

News Letter subscription is here