Instead of creating 20 copies, I decided to nurture the 'individuality' of 20 people.
I wrote at the end of the last post that next, I would talk about education that 'passes individual skills on to the organization.'
And I've been thinking about that all week.
To put it bluntly—I stopped trying to pass them on.
I am aware that I am saying the exact opposite of what I promised. Please let me explain in order.
My individual skills
When I talk to clients in meetings, an image of the finished product instantly comes to mind.
At the same time, the process to completion, the steps, and suggestions on 'how to make it even better' also come to mind.
Especially when talking to designers, I try to read the true intent behind the drawings. What does this person really want to create?
So, by the time the meeting is over, we both have the same picture in our heads. That feeling is quite satisfying, you know.
I think it is my greatest weapon, acquired over 20 years.
The true nature of this intuition
How do I pass this on to the organization? As I thought about it, I became curious and searched through literature with AI.
It turns out there is actual research on this 'instantly coming to mind' phenomenon.
There is a paper written by Nobel laureate in economics Daniel Kahneman, together with Gary Klein, a leading expert in intuition research. The true nature of an expert's intuition is not magic, but pattern recognition.
Only people who have spent many years in the same field, in an environment where results are returned immediately, accumulate countless patterns in their heads. The situation in front of them is matched against one of those, and the answer 'pops up'.
It hit home completely.
Building on-site, installing, seeing the client's face, failing, and fixing. For 20 years, I was in a place where results were returned every single time. That intuition was the output of that accumulation.
In other words, this can never be nurtured through classroom learning.
The reason I couldn't pass it on wasn't because I was bad at teaching.
There was another phrase that resonated with me.
It's the concept of "tacit knowledge" by philosopher Michael Polanyi. It's the idea that people know more than they can tell.
Just as someone who can ride a bicycle cannot fully verbalize how to do it, the core of a skill is inherently inexpressible in words.
Ikujiro Nonaka, a world-renowned researcher in knowledge management, goes even further. He says that tacit knowledge can only be transferred from person to person through shared experience. It can only be transferred by standing in the field together and being exposed to the same experiences.
In other words, to pass on my intuition to someone, I would have to spend 20 years working in the field with them.
That's impossible. Physically impossible.
The reason I couldn't pass it on wasn't because I was bad at teaching, nor was it because the members lacked ability. Structurally, it was something that couldn't be passed on.
Once I realized this, I honestly felt a bit relieved.
I won't create copies
So, what will the company do?
Even if I created 20 copies of myself, the company wouldn't become stronger. No matter how talented they are, as long as they are copies, they can't surpass the original. And I already know that I can't create them anyway.
Instead, it's better to turn the unique qualities that each member already possesses into strength.
When I looked into this, I found that Peter Drucker, a giant in management studies, had been saying this for a long time: to achieve results, build on strengths. Don't spend time correcting weaknesses.
Gallup, a global research company, has been studying this topic for decades. There is even data showing that groups that leverage their strengths are 23% more profitable than those that don't.
I also found some uncomfortable numbers. Only 6% of people in Japan are enthusiastic about their work. It seems to be the lowest level in the world.
If making people fix their weaknesses and forcing them into a mold results in 6% enthusiasm, then that is the Japanese average.
We will go the opposite way. I decided that the company will not compete based on the "founder's skills," but on the "collection of members' strengths."
The mechanism is surprisingly simple
So, what will we do as an educational system?
Agree on numerical goals with each other. Set KPIs. Manage the process toward achievement together with your supervisor.
That is all.
It might look rough, but there is evidence for this. In goal-setting research, it has been known for nearly half a century that a combination of specific, slightly challenging goals and regular feedback develops people better than vague encouragement like 'do your best'.
And this is the most important part.Have them create the methods themselves.
Because if you hand them the methods, you just go back to making copies.
In psychology, there is something called Self-Determination Theory. It suggests that the deepest source of human motivation is the feeling that 'I decided this myself.' The moment you are told how to do something, the work becomes someone else's business. The moment you are entrusted with how to do it, the work becomes your own.
Agree on the goals together. Leave the path to them.
In return, I encourage self-investment in their areas of strength, and the company provides a certain level of support. If there is something they want to learn, I will push them forward.
If the previous evaluation system was a 'mechanism to connect results and treatment,' this one is a 'mechanism to connect strengths and growth.'
Only when both are in place is the foundation finally built.
I will still use my own skills
Once I stopped handing over my techniques, one more thing became clear.
I will continue to use this weapon on the front lines.
This is not a story about handing things over or stepping back. It is quite the opposite.
If members can fight with their respective strengths, I will be freed from making copies and can pour all my time into my own strengths.
From a company pulled by one person's skills to a company that sprints ahead with the strengths of 20 people.
But I am not giving up the lead just yet.
DW
P.S.
I declared that I would 'relax my shoulders' last time, so I'm sure some will think I'm straining again by pulling in literature and such, so here is my excuse.
When you brainstorm with AI, this kind of thing happens. When you talk about something you've decided in your gut, it replies, 'Actually, there is research on that idea.'
The moment my 20 years of experience shakes hands with academic terminology. This is quite addictive.
Next time, I'll talk about the numbers I've been keeping on the back burner. I'll begin a play-by-play of taking a 33% gross margin to 40%.