We No Longer Need Subordinates Who Wait for Instructions. 'Alignment' That Fosters Proactivity Changes Organizations
'Report, communicate, and consult (Ho-Ren-So) if anything happens,' or 'Make sure you report, communicate, and consult properly.' This 'Ho-Ren-So' is used in business settings almost like a watchword. It is taught as a basic behavior for working professionals, and many people have likely tried to practice it without ever questioning its importance.
However, what if this term 'Ho-Ren-So' is actually a trap that sometimes shuts down thinking and causes us to lose sight of the essence of communication? The boss thinks, 'I must have said it,' and the subordinate thinks, 'I reported it.' We should pay more attention to the reality that such discrepancies in perception lead to rework, overtime, and deteriorating interpersonal relationships, all of which erode the productivity of the entire team.
In this article, we will clarify the problems with 'Ho-Ren-So,' which tends to fall into reliance on intuition, and delve deeply into the importance and concrete practical methods of 'alignment,' a new communication technique that replaces it. What is required in the coming era is not one-way transmission, but the ability to form a common understanding through two-way dialogue. I hope this article will serve as a guide to updating your team's communication and dramatically improving the quality of your work.
Chapter 1: The Curse of 'Ho-Ren-So' and the Real Reason It Doesn't Work
In many organizations, Ho-Ren-So is positioned as an essential skill for conducting business smoothly. Its original purpose is to promote information sharing within the organization and lead to rapid decision-making and problem-solving. However, in many cases, its actual operation is far from its original purpose. Let's look from multiple perspectives at why the instruction to 'do Ho-Ren-So' is failing in so many workplaces.
First, Ho-Ren-So is often perceived as one-way information transmission, or a 'reporting obligation.' For the subordinate, the act of 'reporting' to the boss becomes the goal itself, making it difficult to focus on how that information is received and how it will be utilized. They tend to think their task is complete as long as they report it, and they often neglect the work of confirming whether the boss has correctly understood the information or whether the background and context have been conveyed.
On the other hand, the boss may also be satisfied with 'having received a report' and fail to dig deeper into the subordinate's intent or the underlying concerns and issues. As a result, even though information seems to be flowing, the 'tragedy of the telephone game' occurs daily, where the images in each other's heads are completely different.
Second, Ho-Ren-So can become a breeding ground for a 'wait-for-instructions' attitude. Subordinates who are constantly told to 'consult frequently' stop thinking for themselves and start seeking the boss's judgment even for trivial matters. While this may look like risk management at first glance, in the long run, it significantly lowers the subordinate's proactivity and problem-solving ability. The subordinate falls into the mindset of 'I only need to do what I'm told,' and the boss becomes bogged down in micromanagement, unable to devote time to the strategic tasks they should be focusing on. This prevents both individual growth and organizational development. The term 'Ho-Ren-So' has become a convenient excuse that encourages a cessation of thought.
Third is the issue of psychological burden. Reporting negative information (such as mistakes or delays) is something that requires courage for anyone. Even if one understands in their head that 'Ho-Ren-So is important,' it is not uncommon for reports to be delayed due to the fear of 'being scolded' or 'being thought of as incompetent.' This is how situations occur where a problem could have been dealt with immediately if reported while small, but is already too late by the time it is discovered. This is not just a matter of individual character, but is fundamentally caused by an organizational atmosphere where 'it is difficult to report bad news,' or in other words, a lack of psychological safety. Simply shouting 'do Ho-Ren-So' is not enough to overcome this psychological wall.
Fourth, the 'quality' of the information transmitted is not guaranteed. Subordinates do not accurately grasp what level of information the boss wants, at what timing, and in what format. As a result, they may throw information at the boss indiscriminately, or conversely, they may try to be helpful by selecting information, only to have important details fall through the cracks. Bosses also tend to give vague instructions like 'please handle it appropriately.'
As long as both sides continue to rely on 'intuition' or 'tacit understanding' in their communication, the quality of information will not stabilize, and they will continue to carry the risk of constant perception gaps. For these reasons, the one-way instruction to 'do Ho-Ren-So' is not necessarily an effective communication method in today's complex business environment.
Chapter 2: What is 'Alignment'? The Decisive Difference from Ho-Ren-So
So, what is the communication that should replace 'Ho-Ren-So'? It is 'alignment.' When you hear 'alignment,' you might imagine simple 'discussion' or 'meetings,' but its essence is a deeper technique with a clear intent. While Ho-Ren-So focuses on 'information transmission,' alignment has the goal of 'forming a common understanding.' This is the decisive difference between the two.
Alignment is a two-way dialogue process in which stakeholders align their perceptions and correct discrepancies in advance and periodically regarding all elements related to work, such as the purpose of the work, goals, progress methods, quality, role division, and expectations.
It is not one-way 'reporting' or 'contacting,' but can be likened to the work of putting the images in each other's heads on the table and jointly drawing a single, clear picture.
For example, suppose a boss asks a subordinate, 'Please have this document ready by tomorrow.' In the culture of Ho-Ren-So, the subordinate answers, 'Understood,' and starts creating the document based on their own interpretation. Then, the next day, the boss might look at the submitted document and hold their head in their hands, saying, 'This is not what I intended.'
On the other hand, in a culture of alignment, a dialogue begins here. The subordinate confirms, 'Understood. Let me align with you for a moment. Is the purpose of this document to facilitate the decision-making for △△ at the ○○ meeting?' They then ask further questions, such as, 'As for the output image, would it be okay to summarize the main data and considerations in about five PowerPoint slides?' or 'What are the points that should be particularly emphasized?'
The boss also responds, giving specific feedback such as, 'That's right. The purpose is as you said. However, since speed is important this time, you don't have to stick to PowerPoint; it's fine to summarize the main points on one sheet of Word. More importantly, make sure to include the latest trends of competitor A.' This series of exchanges is what 'alignment' is.
Through this dialogue, a common understanding is born between the two regarding 'why this work is being done (purpose),' 'what state constitutes success in the end (goal),' 'what level of quality is required (quality standards),' and 'who does what and to what extent (role division).' This common understanding becomes the compass that prevents rework and improves the quality of work.
The benefits brought by alignment are immeasurable. First, rework is overwhelmingly reduced, and productivity improves. By taking the time to create a common understanding at the beginning, you can prevent major corrections or redos in later stages. This ultimately leads to a reduction in overtime hours.
Next, it draws out the proactivity of team members. By clarifying the purpose and goals, members begin to think autonomously and devise ways to 'reach that goal.' They stop being mere workers and develop a sense of ownership in the project.
Furthermore, the alignment process contributes to the cultivation of psychological safety. By establishing a culture where asking questions and exchanging opinions is the norm, the anxiety of 'is it okay to ask this?' is resolved, and members can confidently express their own ideas.
This creates constructive disagreement, which becomes the soil for innovation. If Ho-Ren-So is point-based communication (at the time of reporting), alignment is line-based communication (the entire process). This continuous, two-way dialogue can be called the essential OS (operating system) for modern teams.
Chapter 3: 5 Practical Techniques for 'Alignment' You Can Start Today
Although you may have understood the importance of 'alignment,' many of you may not know what to do or how to do it specifically. Alignment is not something that requires special talent or tools, but a technique that can be practiced with a little awareness and ingenuity in daily communication. Here, I will introduce five concrete techniques that you can use starting today.
The first is 'sharing the purpose and background.' Every job has a purpose and background for 'why it is being done.' Sharing this first is the first step in alignment. When requesting work, instead of just cutting out a task and handing it over by saying, 'Make a ○○ document,' thoroughly convey the purpose and background as a set, such as, 'I need data showing the market size and future potential to get approval for new business A at next week's management meeting. So, I want you to create a document that will serve as persuasive material for that.'
On the other hand, those receiving work should also get into the habit of confirming the purpose by asking, 'What is this task for?' If you know the purpose, you will be able to make proposals that create added value beyond the scope of the instructions. For example, you could take proactive action by saying, 'In that case, wouldn't it be more persuasive to have specific personas of the main target audience, not just the market size?'
The second is 'concretizing the goal image.' Align your mutual understanding of the finished product with concrete words and images. The '5W1H' framework is very effective for this. Clarify 'When,' 'Who,' 'Whom,' 'What,' 'Why,' 'How,' and 'How much/How well.' In particular, aligning on quality standards, or 'to what level,' is important.
By aligning expectations for the level of completion, such as 'Are we aiming for perfection, or is a draft level okay for now?' or 'Is detailed design work necessary, or are bulleted notes sufficient?', you can eliminate wasted effort and reach the goal in the shortest distance. If possible, showing each other reference materials or past deliverables, or even drawing simple diagrams or structural plans—even if hand-drawn—can further prevent perception gaps.
The third is 'clarifying expectations.' This is the work of eliminating 'tacit understandings' regarding how to proceed with work and role division. For example, discuss in advance points such as 'Who is the final decision-maker for this task?', 'How much discretion do I have?', 'How often should I report progress?', and 'Who should I consult first when I'm in trouble?' Instead of the boss dumping the task by saying, 'Just proceed as you see fit,' convey specific expectations, such as, 'I'll leave the basic approach to you, but please be sure to consult me if a decision involving the budget becomes necessary. Can you share progress for about 5 minutes at the Monday morning meeting once a week?' This allows the subordinate to concentrate on their work with peace of mind, and the boss is freed from excessive worry.
The fourth point is 'periodic synchronization and course correction.' Even if you achieve perfect alignment at the beginning, unexpected problems and changes in prerequisites will inevitably occur during the course of a project. Therefore, it is essential to have a process where you periodically pause, confirm that there are no discrepancies in understanding, and make course corrections if necessary. This is not merely a progress report meeting. While confirming progress, you also engage in dialogue about points such as 'Has anything changed from the original plan?', 'Have any concerns or issues emerged?', and 'Can we really achieve our goal if we proceed as is?' Ideally, you should create a space to synchronize the situation as a team, even if it is just for a short time every day, like the 'daily scrum' (morning meeting) used in agile development. This periodic synchronization enables early detection of problems and rapid response, preventing the project from going off track.
The fifth point is 'designing high-quality questions.' Alignment is a process of dialogue, and its quality depends heavily on the quality of the 'questions' asked. A vague question like 'Is there any problem?' will almost always result in the answer 'No, not really.' Instead, it is important to ask specific, open-ended questions that prompt the other person to think.
For example, questions such as 'What do you think is the biggest risk in proceeding with this plan?', 'If there were absolutely no constraints, what would be the ideal way to proceed?', or 'What points do you think the client would be disappointed with if they saw this output?' Such questions draw out the other person's sense of ownership and serve as a trigger to uncover potential risks and new ideas. It is highly effective for fostering a culture of alignment for not only the person asking the questions but the entire team to think about and practice 'what constitutes a good question.'
Chapter 4: To Make 'Alignment' the Flesh and Blood of the Organization
As we have seen so far, 'alignment' is both an individual skill and something that should be rooted as a culture for the entire team or organization. No matter how excellent an individual may be at practicing alignment techniques, if those around them remain in the mindset of 'reporting, communicating, and consulting' (Ho-Ren-So), the effect will be limited. Here, we will consider approaches to establishing 'alignment' as an organization's natural mode of behavior—that is, as its culture.
First and foremost, the role of managers and leadership is the most important. An organization's culture is largely directed by the words and actions of its leaders. It is essential for leaders themselves to take the initiative and show themselves practicing 'alignment.' When requesting work from subordinates, they should never skimp on the time to carefully explain the purpose and background and share the image of the goal. They should welcome questions and suggestions from subordinates, and even if they are immature, they should listen and encourage dialogue.
Conversely, when receiving vague 'reporting, communicating, and consulting' from a subordinate, they should persistently continue to encourage alignment by saying things like, 'Could you tell me a little more specifically?' or 'I want to hear your thoughts behind that.' Such an attitude from a leader sends the message that 'in this team, dialogue and alignment are encouraged,' which fosters a sense of security and proactivity among members.
Next, promoting 'systematization' across the entire team is also effective. Rather than relying solely on awareness or mindset, you should introduce systems and rules that allow alignment to occur naturally. For example, always include an item called 'Confirmation of concerns and prerequisites (alignment)' in the agenda of regular meetings.
At the project kickoff, it should be mandatory to create a document that clearly states the 'purpose, goals, and role distribution' and hold an 'alignment meeting' where all stakeholders read it together. In chat tools, rather than just throwing out a message like 'Consultation regarding XX,' it is also good to prepare a dedicated template and set a rule to post only after describing items such as '[Purpose],' '[Current Status],' and '[Things to consult/Points of discussion].' Such systems provide a template for alignment and serve as guidelines for members to practice without getting lost.
Furthermore, fostering a culture that tolerates failure and learns from it will solidify the foundation of an alignment culture. Even with repeated alignment, discrepancies in understanding will sometimes occur, leading to failure. At such times, rather than blaming someone or hunting for a culprit, it is important to treat the process itself as an opportunity for reflection and learning, asking, 'Why did the discrepancy occur this time?' and 'How can we align next time to prevent this failure?' Only in an environment where failure cases can be openly discussed as the team's shared assets—that is, an environment with high psychological safety—can members continue to challenge themselves to achieve higher-quality alignment without feeling intimidated.
The path to establishing 'alignment' as a culture is by no means flat. It takes time and energy to change the long-ingrained customs of 'reporting, communicating, and consulting.' However, the return gained from this is not limited to mere productivity improvement. An organization where each member demonstrates proactivity and engages in constructive dialogue while respecting one another—that will become the very essence of flexible and resilient competitiveness needed to survive in an era of rapid change. Through a three-in-one approach of leadership commitment, support through systems, and an attitude of learning from failure, 'alignment' will be elevated from a mere technique to the flesh and blood of the organization.
Summary
We have long been taught the importance of 'reporting, communicating, and consulting' (Ho-Ren-So) as the basics of work. However, the one-way nuance that the term carries has, without us realizing it, stopped our thinking and, in some aspects, encouraged communication based on intuition. The resulting discrepancies in understanding have created rework and inefficiency, and have sapped the team's vitality. What is required of us now is to update this old 'Ho-Ren-So' OS and install a new communication OS called 'alignment'.
'Alignment' is not just reporting or communicating. It is a two-way dialogue process that forms a common understanding by matching the images in each other's minds, starting from the core parts such as the purpose, goals, and expectations of the work. It can be said to be the most effective methodology for eliminating major waste in later processes and improving the quality of work itself by investing a little time at the beginning. Share the purpose, concretize the goals, and clarify expectations. Then, while periodically synchronizing, continue to make course corrections. This series of processes draws out individual proactivity, increases psychological safety, and transforms the team into a more creative group.
Before you instruct someone to 'do your reporting, communicating, and consulting,' please pause for a moment. Was what you really wanted to convey an obligatory reporting act? Or was it a constructive dialogue to aim for the goal together? From 'reporting, communicating, and consulting' to 'alignment.' This small change in words should be a big step that changes your way of working, and your team's way of working, into something more essential and more productive.
