A Manager's Job Is Not Necessarily 'Evaluation' or 'Talent Development'
My name is Yanagawa, and I am a business manager and executive officer for the financial business at BASE, Inc.
My career path has been Engineer → PdM → Business Manager.
During that time, I have also spent about five years in management roles.
Specifically, I have performed the following types of work.
Building an organization from scratch and leading recruitment
Managing a multi-layered organization with diverse job functions
Recruitment and organizational operations for a scale of 1 to 30 people
Please note that I am not a so-called professional functional manager, but rather a business manager with experience in management for the purpose of executing business.
I believe it is important to ask what a manager is even for.Managing or developing people should not become the goal itself. I feel strongly about this.
Based on that experience, I have summarized my thoughts on 'what a manager's job is'.
Target Audience
Creating products and turning them into money in some form.
This is the premise of such work.
And I believe thatthe entire process of product creation is 'planning' work.
In addition to the above, I am keeping in mind that this is astartupenvironment.
The Conclusion
To start with the conclusion,a manager's role changes depending on the business model and business phase.
In this context, what I want to say in this article is thatin a startup-like environment where there is a PdM, there are many cases where a manager's main job is not 'evaluation' or 'talent development'.
Let's dig deeper and think about what management is for.
Both evaluation and development are not goals in themselves, but merely means.
An organization does not exist to 'develop people,' but to achieve something. Managers often tend to forget this essence in their busy daily lives. But the one thing you must not forget is the order.
First,there is a purpose.
To achieve that purpose,there is a strategy,
and to execute that strategy,there is an organization.
This order cannot be broken.
Is your team or organization properly connected in this flow?
Can you explain that connection in your own words?
If the result is that development is the primary goal, then it is okay to focus on development.
However, I don't think the probability of that is very high.
You can afford to spend costs on development when you are in asustained success phase and that phase is expected to clearly continue.
To put it another way, I think it iswhen it is guaranteed that you will make money if you mass-produce people who can follow a mold.
An organization is a means.
Management Challenges by Organizational Phase
The ideal form of an organization changes significantly depending on its phase.
So, what kind of phases are there?
Here, as an example of phase division, I will introduce a quote from
'Manager Models That Lead to Rapid Growth: 'Even' Management in an Era Where Status and Power Do Not Work'.
This book is excellent, so please read it.
Startup Phase (0→1 Phase)
A period of shaping the product and organization while repeating hypothesis testing. Emphasis on chaos tolerance and speed.
Rapid Expansion Phase (1→10 Phase)
A period when the organization expands with growth, and systematization and division of labor become urgent tasks. The key is balancing momentum and infrastructure.
Success Continuation Phase (10 to 100 Phase)
A period after establishing a market position where one does not settle for the status quo but continues to search for the next growth engine.
Course Correction Phase (Pivot Phase)
A period when one faces the collapse of hypotheses or market changes, requiring a fundamental review of strategies and models.
Turnaround Phase (Recovery Phase)
A period of attempting to survive and restart after both the business and the organization have been severely damaged.
You can only focus on evaluation and talent development when the business model is stable
Even if you 'can' do talent development, it takes time.
And to truly commit to development, several conditions must be met. For example,
Having sufficient funds
Having a structure where development directly leads to profit
Having development know-how already standardized into a model
The business being stable and in a success continuation phase
In reality, not only are these conditions often unmet, but there are many situations where goals and strategies change frequently. Are there any startups doing the same thing they were a year ago? Can that even be called a startup? I believe that in a highly changing environment, the priority of 'development' must be lowered.
In a startup, the success continuation phase never comes
In a startup, there is basically no such thing as a 'success continuation phase'. Even if the product grows temporarily, revenue stabilizes, and the team is running well, that is just
a fleeting passing point, and the situation will change soon.
The market moves. Competitors appear. Technology evolves.
The moment you think, 'This will be fine for a while,' the next change has already begun.
That is why, in a startup, you should discard the feeling that 'once you succeed, you will be stable.'
'Keep running without stopping' might be the only stability.
In a startup, talent development and evaluation cannot be essential work
Evaluation and development are measures to maintain the organization and ensure the stable continuation of success. In other words, they are
'activities to copy what is currently working and increase reproducibility'.
However, in an environment like a startup where businesses and products are constantly changing and the premises keep shifting,
is it really okay to just copy the current state as it is?
In a constantly changing situation, even if you 'stably operate' evaluation and development systems,
it is not uncommon for the premises themselves to have shifted by the time you notice.
That is why I believe that in a startup, the phases where 'nurturing people' or 'evaluating fairly'
should be the central mission are surprisingly limited.
In a startup, being leisurely enough to manage people
You might get the wrong idea when you are given the title of manager, but having the mindset of managing is dangerous.
It is especially dangerous for an organization to have too many layers.
Decision-making speed drops, it becomes ambiguous who decides what, and responses to issues are delayed.
People with authority become distant from the front lines, creating a structure where you cannot notice abnormalities in the organization.
In the first place, the need to manage people in detail only arises when:
You need 'cogs' that move within a fixed system
You have a solid business model and rely on labor-intensive operations
You have a stable revenue source (cash cow) that is fine even if you tie people's hands and feet
It is only at times like those.
But startups do not have such leisurely premises.
Change is the premise, and people with intent must make decisions and act on the front lines.
So what should you do then?
I believe that managers should focus on the work of using the team to achieve objectives.
Instead of being taken up by evaluation and development,
what you should focus on first is 'designing and driving the team to produce results'.
To be a bit more specific, for example, the following things apply:
Work allocation: Appropriately dividing roles according to members' strengths and situations to maximize the team's overall power
Planning and drafting: Mapping out and sharing the path of where to aim, and what to do by when to achieve it
Exception handling: Dealing with unexpected situations and issues where responsibility is ambiguous, and taking on cases that are difficult to judge and that no one else picks up, to ensure the team does not stop
Business improvement: Finding inefficiencies and stress in daily work and updating the systems themselves
These are all tasks aimed at 'achieving results as a team, not as individuals.'
And from a perspective that only a manager can see, I believe that focusing on the role of creating, organizing, and advancing the flow ultimately leads to increasing the productivity and satisfaction of the entire team.
I feel it is presumptuous to talk about development, and I can only really support the achievement of results.
In a startup, managers should keep their hands dirty
Especially in a startup, I believe that managers should keep their hands dirty. I have some doubts about the commonly heard saying that 'an excellent manager is one who builds an organization that functions without them.' I have some doubts about this statement.
Of course, this doesn't mean you should keep doing the same thing forever.
As you stay hands-on, what you need to do is constantly changing, and your role evolves accordingly.
What is important is to be in a state where you can sense the temperature and signs of change on the front lines and immediately switch to the necessary actions.
The reality of a startup is that if you are just a manager who only manages, you cannot keep up with the speed of change. Since managers have the
authority to change how the front lines operate, they must be sensitive to the state of the front lines.
That is why I believe managers themselves must have the resolution of a player and move forward while acting within the changes themselves.
Being a playing manager is not a bad thing; it is actually a necessity.
Coming to terms with the desire to 'develop' others
Development itself is something you should do if you can, and it is certainly not a bad thing.
In fact, it is one of the ideal initiatives for sound organizational management.
But in reality, you must maintain the organization while simultaneously achieving results.
Honestly, this is quite an impossible game.
So, what do you do? In my experience, people grow most naturally 'after results are achieved.' People only grow when they are involved in the process of achieving results and gain a sense of accomplishment.
That is why you have no choice but to first create a system that produces results.
I believe you should focus on how to design an environment where people grow through results, rather than making development the goal.
It is necessary to make demands
Although it is slightly different from development, 'making demands' is important.
Convey what you want them to do and how you want them to be, based on the current situation of the team.
How much support you can provide after conveying this depends on the phase, but if you don't convey it, things will continue to drift apart.
I don't think 'evaluation for the sake of management' is necessary, but I believe 'evaluation for the sake of conveying how you want them to be' is necessary to achieve results as a team.
Toward an era where expertise lies in managing 'systems'
Let me summarize what I have discussed so far from a slightly different angle.
What I want to convey is a shift in perspective toward 'managing systems, not managing people.'
Management tends to focus on 'people' more than anything else.
Evaluating, developing, caring—everything was premised on manipulation or adjustment of people.
However, with the advent of generative AI, as much of the actual hands-on work becomes systematized and automated, the role of the manager will also change.
From now on, value will gather in people who can design, operate, and continuously update the systems themselves.
Managers as strategists who create and manage systems will be the ones who survive.
What kind of structure will allow the team to achieve maximum results with the minimum number of people?
How much should be left to AI, and where should human judgment and sensibility remain?
How to redesign the system from the ground up when processes stall
The ability to re-examine organizations and projects from this perspective
will remain useful even in the era of generative AI.
If you intend to make a living in management, I believe this is the necessary expertise you should focus on.
[Summary] What kind of team is your team?
What kind of team is your team?
Can you answer the above question in one word?
I believe a manager's job is not to develop talent, but to build a system that allows the team to produce results.
The reality is that talent development might just be a byproduct of that.
We have no choice but to continue hiring and developing while maintaining the foundations of both the team and the business. It's seriously an impossible game, but let's do our best together.
It is only by making this realistically viable that it holds any significance.
Things like being able to afford development costs just because you happen to have excess resources have zero reproducibility and rely on external factors.
I personally started out wanting to do organizational building and development. That is why I am serious about the business. People might think I'm a 'macho' type who just wants to grow the business at all costs, but that's not the case.
To do organizational building and development with a medium-to-long-term perspective, you can't do it unless the business is viable first, so I am doing my best to become someone who can produce results in the business.
It is the height of irresponsibility to want to do organizational building and development when you can't even grow the business.
Therefore, I argue that evaluation and development are means, not ends.
Does that feel contradictory? It's not contradictory at all!
[Appendix] What is considered a manager's job
It might be a bit late in the article, but as an appendix, I have categorized the work of a manager. There are quite a few, 11 categories in total.
I would be happy if you could look at this and comment on what work you are currently doing and what you think you should be focusing on.
1. Hiring
The job of identifying talent with the necessary skills and stance and welcoming them into the team. It is not just filling positions, but 'searching for companions' in line with the team's future vision and the direction of the business.
2. Work Allocation
The job of deciding who does what and optimally allocating resources. It involves creating a structure where both the individual and the team can succeed while balancing skills, workload, and growth opportunities.
3. Evaluation
The job of observing and judging performance, results, and attitude to provide appropriate evaluations. It needs to function not only as a reflection of compensation and roles but also as feedback and a mirror for the individual's growth.
4. Talent Development
The job of supporting members so they can grow autonomously. It requires not just teaching, but asking questions, designing opportunities, and cultivating the soil for learning.
5. Care
The job of paying attention to the mental and physical state of members and maintaining a state where they can work with peace of mind. It is important to sense changes in motivation or signs of burnout and take necessary actions.
6. Building Organizational Culture
The work of consciously shaping the values and culture that take root within a team. It involves designing 'what is considered normal' through words, actions, systems, and daily decisions.
7. Planning and Strategy Formulation
The work of thinking through medium- to long-term policies and initiatives for the team or business. It is a role close to 'meaning design,' where one maps out not just immediate tasks, but how they connect to the bigger picture.
8. Progress Management
The work of tracking whether tasks assigned to individual members or the team are proceeding according to plan and making adjustments as necessary. It also involves acting as a lubricant to resolve bottlenecks.
9. Relationship Building
The work of building positive relationships both inside and outside the team. It involves reconnecting multiple lines of communication—between members, with other teams, and with management—to promote collaboration based on a foundation of trust.
10. Exception Handling
The work of dealing with unexpected situations or issues where the locus of responsibility is ambiguous. It involves facing difficult decisions that no one else will pick up to ensure the team does not come to a standstill.
11. Operational Improvement
The work of reviewing daily operations and systems to make them more efficient and effective. It involves gathering feedback from the front lines and increasing the overall productivity of the team through recurrence prevention and systemization.
[Future Forecast] Changes in Organizations and the Image of Managers to Come
This is the topic for the next note I mentioned at the beginning. I plan to write something along the lines of, 'The white-collar workers who will survive in the AI era are strategists who create and manage systems.' I will touch on that topic briefly here.
I wrote this at a later date.
The number of managers will decrease in the future
I believe that in the coming era, the number of managers will gradually decrease.
Rather, the very nature of organizations will change in the direction of 'not gathering so many people that managers become necessary' and 'not assuming labor-intensive models'.
The era of small decision-making units = mini-leaders
What will increase instead is the presence of mini-leaders who can make decisions and take action in small units.
In our company, these would be people like 'Owners'.
With them at the center, autonomous, purpose-driven teams of a small number of people should emerge.
Why are pyramid-shaped organizations decreasing?
I am not saying that 'management' is completely unnecessary. There are, of course, cases where it is needed depending on the phase and role.
However, from now on, multi-layered, pyramid-shaped organizational structures will certainly decrease.
This is because that structure has
slow decision-making,
a lack of flexibility,
and difficulty in responding to change
—fatal weaknesses for the current environment.
The Trap of the Word 'Manager'
In the first place, the word 'manager' itself is prone to misunderstanding.
'Management' becomes the goal, and the objective that was supposed to be achieved becomes blurred. Even if management is necessary,
it is important to keep in mind what you want to achieve beyond that.
What Teams Need from Now On Is 'Will'
What is being questioned in the way we work from now on is not the job title, but 'what kind of will are you acting with?'
It is an era where people who act based on purpose and meaning, rather than acting based on titles, demonstrate value.
I believe that building a team centered on such a will is what will suit organizations from now on.
[Thoughts] Companies that can hire a large number of new graduates at once are amazing
When I see companies that can hire a large number of new graduates at once, I honestly think they are amazing.
I was also hired as a new graduate and raised by one. I truly think it is amazing now, and I am very grateful.
It is proof that they have a robust business model capable of handling a large number of new graduates.
In such companies, there is a system designed so that the people hired function as pawns within the organization.
That is not meant in a bad way; it means there is a structure where roles and reproducibility are clear, and it works even with a large number of people.
By the way, if you think about it from the perspective of the person being hired, there is a somewhat interesting question.
Was I hired as a 'pawn in a business model',
or was I hired as an 'investment target from whom future growth is expected because there is a cash cow'?
If you re-examine your own company from this perspective,
you might see the business model and management philosophy from a slightly different angle.
It should also be a trigger to notice the design intent of the environment you are currently in.
Editor's Note: The thing I wanted to say most in this article
Because the manager is the most hands-on! After all, you're a leader, not a boss!
There are people who step back or hold back just because they've become seniors or management!
'No, if you don't grow, you become a lid on the organization's growth, so go grab growth opportunities aggressively.'
That's what I think.
And increase the resolution of what an opportunity is.
Even if you delegate, lean in and delegate actively.
I want to ask, have you grown enough to be saying things like 'that would deprive the other person of a growth opportunity'?
And to top it off, you're the one saying, 'I want to go back to being a player because I want to grow'!
