People who think their job is done once they have 'conveyed' information do not understand Ho-Ren-So
The essence of Ho-Ren-So
Ho-Ren-So is not a game of telephone.
I sent a message.
I wrote it in the chat.
I spoke to my boss.
Many people think that because they did these things, they have completed Ho-Ren-So.
That is a common way of thinking.
However, the true meaning of Ho-Ren-So is not just passing information to the other party.
It is about creating a state where the other party understands the situation, makes necessary decisions, and can take the next action.
Reporting only the results after a problem is completely over.
Sending a single line about a fact that occurred without writing the background or progress.
Asking 'what should I do?' only right before the deadline.
Even if the person thinks they have conveyed the information, the people around them are left with neither the time nor the information to make a judgment.
That is not Ho-Ren-So.
It is merely shifting the responsibility of holding that information onto the other person at the very end.
Not reporting progress on a job that started based on someone else's trust
What I find particularly unacceptable is
not reporting back to someone after they have introduced a project or a vendor to you.
For example, suppose an acquaintance introduces a project to you on Monday.
The introducer contacted the other party,
explained who you are,
and created an opportunity for a business meeting.
On Tuesday, you met with the other party, heard their issues, and decided to submit a quote.
However, you tell the introducer nothing after that.
When Friday comes and the introducer asks,
'Were you able to speak with them?'
you finally reply,
'I spoke with them on Tuesday. It is currently under consideration.'
You reply.
This does not count as having communicated.
If you had a meeting on Tuesday,
you should have reported your current status that day, or at the latest, the next day.
'I met with the other party today. They feel there is an issue with XX, and I plan to propose YY. I expect to submit a quote by the end of this week, and the direction should be decided by the first half of next week.'
With this level of information, the referrer can grasp the situation.
It goes without saying that you should report whether you ultimately won or lost the order.
However, reporting just the result is not enough.
The referrer did not simply hand over contact information.
They used their own credibility to connect two parties.
If the party receiving the referral handles things poorly, it is not just that company's reputation that is damaged.
The referrer's judgment and discernment are also called into question.
Sometimes the referrer will ask,
'How are things going with the company I introduced you to?'
You should never put the referrer in a position where they cannot answer that question.
You should never put the referrer in a position where they cannot answer that question.
The same applies when you are introduced to a vendor.
They connect you with a vendor and even negotiate prices for you.
After that, you make the appointment yourself and proceed with the discussion directly.
Despite that,
you don't report that you made an appointment,
what you talked about,
or what you intend to do next.
The referrer did not just forward a phone number.
They used the relationships they have built, cleared the way with the other party, and in some cases, even secured better terms than usual.
Failing to report on that progress is not just a failure to communicate.
It shows a lack of awareness that you have used someone else's time and credibility.
For work that began based on someone else's credibility, you have a responsibility to report on the progress.
Reporting, communicating, and consulting are not just for your boss.
It is also part of reporting, communicating, and consulting to ensure that those involved in your work are not left out of the loop.
--
Report while the other party can still intervene.
Some people think that reporting is the act of conveying a completed result.
However, in business, what is valuable is not an explanation after the fact, but raising awareness of anomalies while they are still in progress.
For example, consider a project with a deadline of 5:00 PM on Friday.
As of noon on Wednesday, progress is at 60%.
It is four hours behind the original schedule, and additional revisions have also arisen.
If you report this at this stage, options still remain.
Add one person to help.
Change the priority.
Narrow the scope of the submission.
Explain the situation to the client and adjust the deadline for a portion of the work.
If you are going to report it, it should be as follows.
"Current progress is at 60%, and it is four hours behind the original schedule. At this rate, there is a possibility that it will not be ready for the 5:00 PM Friday submission. We need to either add one person to help or narrow the scope of the submission. As it stands, I believe the plan to narrow the scope of the submission is the most feasible."
With this, the supervisor can make a decision.
However, there are people who try to handle it themselves and withhold information.
They try to wait until their explanation is polished before reporting.
They wait until the delay is certain.
They prioritize the feeling of not wanting to deliver bad news.
And then, at 4:00 PM on Friday, they say,
"It will not be finished by the end of the day."
And they convey that.
At that point, it is too late to add people.
It is too late to change the scope of the submission.
There is almost no time left to explain to the client.
This is not so much a report as it is sharing the result of something that has become too late to fix.
Of course, there are times when you can only report something after it happens, such as with sudden troubles.
Even in that case, there is no need to wait for the cause to be identified.
"I am currently confirming the details, but I am sharing this now because the impact is significant. This is the extent of the facts I have confirmed at this moment."
You should just start by saying that.
What is needed for a report is not a completed explanation.
It is leaving time for the other party to intervene.
--
Communication is about passing on context, not just facts
Some people think that communicating means sending a chat message or an email.
I spoke with the client.
A request for revisions came in.
I am coordinating with the vendor.
Certainly, the facts have been sent.
However, the recipient cannot make any decisions based on this information alone.
What was discussed?
Why did the revision occur?
Is the cause on our end?
Is there an impact on the deadline or cost?
Who does what next?
If the recipient has to ask these questions one by one, the necessary communication has not been completed.
You do not need to explain every conversation in a long paragraph.
What is needed is the context for the other party to understand the situation.
For example, if you spoke with a vendor, you should convey it like this:
I had a meeting with the vendor today. They said they can handle it at the price you negotiated when you introduced us. However, if we move the deadline up by one week, additional costs will be incurred. Since no additional costs are needed with the current schedule, I am planning to place the order under those conditions. I will provide a final answer by tomorrow after internal confirmation.
If you convey this much, the person who introduced you and your boss can understand the current status.
If necessary, they can also provide advice or corrections on the spot.
Communication is not about informing someone of a fact that occurred.
It is about providing the background, progress, current status, and future actions to align the understanding of all involved parties.
--
Consultation should be done while options still remain
There is also an appropriate timing for consultation.
The deadline is tomorrow.
The budget has already been used up.
The relationship with the customer has deteriorated.
There is no time to redo it.
At that stage, if you ask your boss,
What should I do?
there are few options left.
Apologize.
Request a postponement.
Accept the loss.
Have the person in charge step in to do damage control.
This is no longer a consultation to solve a problem, but a discussion on how to handle the damage that has occurred.
Consulting is meaningful only when done at a stage where multiple options are still available.
I don't know the criteria for making a decision.
I am torn between two options.
I cannot evaluate the risks on my own.
I don't know what information I should gather.
At that point, you should borrow someone else's judgment.
You don't need to bring the correct answer.
However, dumping a problem on someone else without thinking is not the right approach.
What is the current situation?
By when is a decision needed?
What am I struggling with?
What options have I considered?
Which option do I think is best at this moment?
What do I want the other person to decide?
If you organize your thoughts this far, the person you are consulting can also think through the issue.
If you cannot even come up with the options themselves,
You should say, 'I don't know what I need to check in order to make a decision.'
Or, 'I would like to consult you not on the conclusion, but on the order of how to think about this.'
That is what you should convey.
Consulting is not an act of receiving an answer.
It is an act of clarifying where your own thinking has stalled and what you need help with.
--
People who cannot report, communicate, and consult only see their own tasks.
Do not attribute the inability to report, communicate, and consult solely to problems with speaking or writing skills.
In many cases, the problem lies in how they view work itself.
Did I send the message?
Is my task finished?
Will I avoid being scolded?
They only look at those things.
However, work is not completed by oneself alone.
A supervisor makes decisions based on the information that comes up.
Other departments proceed with the next preparations.
Clients adjust schedules and budgets internally, and vendors secure personnel and work hours.
The person who made the introduction is connecting relationships while putting their own credibility on the line.
When one piece of information stops, the judgments and actions of multiple people stop.
The phrase 'I have conveyed it' might be convenient for protecting yourself.
However, it is meaningless if the other party does not understand.
It is too late if there is no time left to make a decision.
If it does not lead to the next action, the work has not moved forward.
--
The standard for reporting, communicating, and consulting is not whether you sent the message
Did the necessary person make the necessary decision at the necessary time?
That is where it lies.
Sometimes the boss is the one stopping the information
On the other hand, it is also wrong to make reporting, communicating, and consulting solely the subordinate's responsibility.
Getting angry the moment you receive bad news.
Cutting someone off by saying 'just give me the conclusion' when they try to share progress.
Rejecting them by saying 'figure that out yourself' when they ask for advice.
Under such a boss, information will stop flowing upward quickly.
Subordinates will stay silent until a problem is confirmed and will only report after creating an explanation that won't get them yelled at.
They will try to solve things on their own, wasting time, and will only consult after they are completely stuck.
If you want early reporting, the boss must also be willing to receive unconfirmed information.
Do not blame those who report irregularities early, and when consulted, provide not just the answer but the criteria for judgment.
At what stage should you report?
Who should you contact about what?
Before what deadline should you consult?
Setting these standards is also part of a manager's job.
Reporting, communicating, and consulting should not be left to depend solely on an individual's thoughtfulness or communication skills.
--
Four questions to set from tomorrow
Before reporting, think about this:
If I convey this now, can the other person still intervene?
Before communicating, ask yourself:
With just this information, can the other person understand the situation and take the next step?
Before consulting, ask yourself:
Are there still multiple options left?
And for work that started through someone's introduction:
Whose time and trust were used to start this conversation?
If it's at a stage where they can't intervene, your report is late.
If they can't understand the situation without asking follow-up questions, your communication is insufficient.
If the options have already disappeared, it can't be called a consultation.
If the person who introduced you cannot explain the progress, you are mishandling someone else's trust.
There is only one thing I want to leave you with in this article.
Ho-Ren-So (reporting, communicating, and consulting) is not just about sending words.
It is about ensuring that the judgment, actions, and trust of those involved are not stalled.
Instead of ending your job by saying 'I told them,' think about whether the other person understood,
was able to make a judgment,
and was able to move on to the next step.
Only when you have achieved that can it truly be called Ho-Ren-So.
Behind the breakdown of Ho-Ren-So, there is not only the individual's awareness but also the issue of the system by which the supervisor receives information.
I have summarized here the breakdown of management that occurs when managing without observing how subordinates work.
'Management breaks down because you aren't watching how your subordinates work - The DMFC Framework'
Is work happening around you where people only leave behind the fact that they 'conveyed' something, leaving those involved behind?
At what stage, to whom, and what should you have actually conveyed?
If you have any specific experiences, please let me know in the comments.
If this article has become an opportunity for you to rethink the flow of information in your work, please like and follow.