Having a Yardstick Other Than "Ability": Organizational Development for "Post-Meritocracy" to Foster Employee Self-Esteem - Reflections from a Nikkei Business Article
This article was published to commemorate the release of Teshigawara's book, "Rethinking 'Work'" (Nikkei BP), and delves deeply into the limitations of the "meritocracy" that modern workplaces face, as well as the contradictions in the "proactivity" demanded of employees.
The contradiction of suddenly being demanded to have "proactivity"
The article begins by sharing the original experiences of Teshigawara and Hamada, where unique children who did not fit into the organization were often evaluated as "lacking cooperativeness" in school education. It points out the contradiction that the Japanese education system tends to raise uniform individuals, yet the moment these people enter society, companies suddenly demand that they "have proactivity" and "career autonomy."
Furthermore, the hurdle for "proactivity" demanded by companies is rising year by year, and it is said to include not just acting, but also thinking, communicating, and connecting with others. However, Teshigawara states that there are actually cases where there is a rational reason for employees to "wait for instructions." For example, in an organization where a manager "flips the table" at the very last moment, employees judge it more rational to wait for the top's final decision.
Quiet empathy for "post-meritocracy"
The theme of "post-meritocracy," which Teshigawara has advocated in her series and other works, has gained a lot of empathy, contrary to initial expectations. It is said that the response is particularly strong from the 40-50s "employment ice age" generation, who have felt that they were evaluated by a single yardstick and that their own strengths were not recognized.
This resonates with Hamada's experience when she launched "Business Insider Japan," where she advocated for "capitalism kind to people" and was conscious of an approach different from the "winner-loser" worldview and the symbols of successful people like "arm-crossing in front of a black background" often seen in traditional business media (e.g., photos of smiles in natural light). An episode was also introduced where, by disseminating diverse ways of working and values rather than just highlighting those who won the competition, the number of female and Gen Z readers increased as a result.
The structure of "hurt" brought about by meritocracy
In the latter half of the article, it is discussed that because meritocracy is a single evaluation axis, it may have caused deep-seated hurt to many people, making them feel they were "not approved." That hurt begins with relationships with parents in childhood (e.g., women are expected to have "charm," men are expected to have "strength") and is internalized as the same structure is repeated in school and society.
As a result, it is considered that there are not a few people who fall into a state where they cannot recognize themselves (such as Imposter Syndrome), feeling that "I am always lacking something" or "I am not evaluated by anyone," even if they are objectively achieving results. It is also stated that this is not an individual problem, but a structural problem of society.
How to utilize "post-meritocracy" from the perspective of corporate human resources
As someone working in the corporate HR field, this dialogue article overlapped with many of the challenges and discomforts I feel in my daily work, and it was content that made me think deeply. Perspectives such as "the rationality of employees waiting for instructions" and "hurt caused by meritocracy" provide important suggestions for reviewing organizational management, human resource development, and system design.
Reviewing the soil before demanding "proactivity"
We often tend to have the perception that "employees lack proactivity." And as a countermeasure, we think about conducting training or adding "proactivity" to evaluation items. However, as pointed out in the article, we should first stop and check whether a "rational reason" on the organization's side is hidden in the background where employees cannot (or do not) demonstrate proactivity.
For example, are there frequent "table-flipping" incidents by managers or upper management? Or is the approval process overly cumbersome, and are new attempts given up on because "it won't pass anyway"? Is there a culture of low tolerance for failure and a culture of deduction-based evaluation? It is also possible that important information is limited to a certain layer, and frontline employees do not have the materials to "think with their own heads."
Before sending the message "demonstrate proactivity," it might be a priority to first review the organizational culture and mechanisms to see if "psychological safety" is ensured where employees can safely express their opinions and engage in trial and error. Promoting highly transparent information sharing and clarifying the decision-making process are also considered steps that lead to creating soil where employees can think as if it were their own business.
Dialogue to explore the rationality behind "waiting for instructions"
It is easy to label employee behavior with the word "waiting for instructions," but I feel that the perspective of looking at the "rationality" of the person who is choosing that behavior is very important. Why does that employee wait for instructions?
I would like to use opportunities such as 1-on-1 meetings to carefully listen to the thoughts and circumstances in the background. Perhaps they have a trauma from being strongly scolded in the past when they proceeded with something they thought was good, but it differed from the supervisor's intention. Or perhaps they feel the expected value is too high and are in a state where they cannot move until a perfect answer is found.
Once you can see what that 'rationality' is, the measures you take will also change. For example, try delegating authority in a small scope and clearly stating, 'I leave the decision on this part to you.' Alternatively, instead of waiting for perfect results, show an attitude that welcomes consultation during the process or initial stages. It may also be effective to create mechanisms that encourage speedy feedback and learning from failure so that employees can take on challenges without fear of failure.
Attempts to Break Away from Uniform 'Ability' Evaluation
The theme of 'post-meritocracy' re-examines the very nature of personnel evaluation systems. Of course, it may not be realistic to completely eliminate evaluations based on results and skills (ability). However, I feel it is necessary to constantly reflect on whether the 'yardstick' is too uniform, causing us to overlook the diverse contributions and unique qualities that many employees possess, and consequently creating 'wounds'.
For example, are there people who, even if their achievement of numerical targets is not high, facilitate coordination within the team and contribute to improving the performance of other members? Or are there people who spend time mentoring junior staff and contribute to improving the knowledge level of the entire organization? How to visualize and acknowledge these 'contributions that are difficult to quantify' is a major challenge for future personnel systems.
As for concrete initiatives, one can consider increasing the weight of evaluating actions based on organizational values rather than just performance, or introducing mechanisms like 'peer bonuses' where colleagues send gratitude and praise to each other to increase opportunities for multifaceted 'acknowledgment'.
Addressing 'Wounds' and Designing Opportunities for Acknowledgment
We need to recognize that not only the 'employment ice age generation' mentioned in the article, but many people may have internalized the thought that 'I won't be recognized anyway' from past experiences. In particular, the experience of being required to 'be normal' or 'be strong' during childhood or school education can lower self-esteem and become a factor that puts a brake on demonstrating one's own unique qualities.
What the HR department can do is, first, to understand the existence of such 'wounds' and show an attitude of being close to them. For management, it is required to convey the importance of communication (coaching and servant leadership) that not only manages performance but also acknowledges the very existence of each member, their small daily efforts, and their processes, thereby drawing out their unique qualities.
Also, symbolic initiatives such as stopping the 'crossed-arms photo against a black background' practiced by Mr. Hamada are helpful in changing the organization's message. For example, when introducing employees in internal newsletters or on the intranet, adopting an editorial policy that shines a light not only on spectacular success stories but also on their personality, their approach to work, and their contributions to the team is another way to change the organization's values.
I feel that the path to 'post-meritocracy' does not begin with changing systems all at once, but by each person belonging to the organization striving to understand each other's rationality, acknowledging diverse contributions, and steadily cultivating a culture of mutual recognition. As an HR department, I would like to persistently support the creation of spaces where such dialogue can emerge and mechanisms where employees can feel safe to demonstrate their true selves.
