Change the placement, not the person. The "Power Pro Theory" of management

There was a time when I was struggling with how to make organizational management work.

How can I boost everyone's motivation? How can I get each person to take initiative and demonstrate their strengths? When you start thinking about management, it's easy for your thoughts to turn toward "how to change people."

At that time, I heard a memorable story from Kensaku Ando, the representative of Espuma LLC.

Boosting team members' motivation is, of course, important. But that is not all there is to management. He explained that what is more important is resource allocation—deciding who to place where and what roles they should take on to reach goals and objectives.

Think about placement before boosting motivation

Everyone has things they are good at and things they are not good at.

If you keep telling someone who is assigned a task they are bad at to "try harder" or "let's have a drinking party to get motivated," it rarely leads to results. It is possible that the person doesn't lack ability, but is simply in the wrong place.

In that case, it is better to change the placement before trying to change the person. Find what that person is good at and concentrate their resources in that area as much as possible. Rather than trying to bring their weak areas up to average, bet everything on their strengths.

Hearing this way of thinking, I was quite convinced.

While helping people grow is important, I think the first thing to consider is whether that person is in a place where they can truly demonstrate their strengths.

The "Power Pro Theory" of management

Mr. Ando described this way of thinking as the "Power Pro Theory."

In the baseball game "Jikkyou Powerful Pro Yakyuu" (Power Pros), players with various abilities appear. Some players have great power, while others are good at hitting. There are players who are fast, have strong arms, or are good at defense.

It seems that when many people start management, they first want "All-A" players.

People who can do anything, think and act on their own, communicate well, make few mistakes, and can be entrusted with any task. Certainly, if you had several people like that, I think an organization would be easy to run.

But real human beings are not that simple.

I am the same way, but everyone has areas they are good at and areas they are not. There are people who can do everything above average, and there are people who, even if they have many things they cannot do, demonstrate overwhelming power in a certain area.

Therefore, instead of trying to make everyone "All-A," you need to look at the unevenness of each person's abilities and think about their placement. I believe that is what management is.

Don't put a player with a weak arm in center field

What was particularly easy to understand in this story was the analogy, "You wouldn't put a player with a weak arm in center field, would you?"

If you put a player with a weak arm in center field and keep telling them every day, "Try harder so you can throw further," they might improve a little if they put in the effort.

However, that player might have other strengths. They might be good at batting, or they might be fast. They might be able to demonstrate excellent defensive skills if they were in the infield.

In that case, rather than continuing to blame them for their weak arm, it is better to place them in a position where their strengths can shine.

I think it is the same in work.

Some people are good at coming up with plans, while others are good at coordinating with people. Some people can carry out detailed tasks accurately, while others have a strong ability to move things forward. Some people can perform better when they work alone and focus, while others perform better when they interact with many people.

Instead of demanding the same work style or abilities from everyone, look for the place where that person can perform at their best.

Change the placement first, rather than trying to change the person.

This idea has been very significant for me.

Being a jack-of-all-trades is not the only definition of excellence

In an organization, people who can do everything to a certain extent are often valued. In terms of Power Pros, I think they are like players with all B's or all C's.

They don't fail significantly no matter where you put them, and you can entrust them with various tasks. Certainly, such people are excellent and are a welcome presence for an organization.

On the other hand, there are also people who have outstanding abilities in some areas. They may have many things they cannot do, but they are overwhelmingly strong in a certain domain.

Do you see such people as "difficult to use," or do you see them as "people who can be a great force if their strengths are utilized"? I feel that the competence of the management side is revealed there.

Making everyone get average scores is not what organizational development is about. It is about combining each person's strengths to create a form that allows the team to reach its goal.

It is not necessary for every individual to be an "all-A" player. I think it is fine as long as the team as a whole has the necessary abilities.

If you delegate, you must also hand over authority

However, just placing them in a position they are good at is not enough.

If you are going to entrust a job to someone, you must also hand over the necessary authority. If you say, "You are free to do as you like," but then interfere with every minor decision or take the work away halfway through when it looks like they might fail, the person will not be able to demonstrate their own abilities.

Entrust them with an area they are good at, hand over the necessary authority, and have them think and act for themselves.

And the management side takes final responsibility for the results.

I believe that only by including this can you truly say you are "delegating."

Take responsibility for the person you have delegated to

When you grant authority to someone, naturally, things will not always go as planned. They may make the wrong judgment or fail.

If you distance yourself at that point by saying, "That was their own doing," then you haven't truly delegated in the real sense.

Who do you place where? How much authority do you grant? What kind of goals do you set? It is the management side that decides these things.

Therefore, you must take responsibility for the results of that person's actions.

Upon hearing this, I thought that perhaps the essence of management lies right here.

It is not about managing people, nor is it about keeping everyone's motivation high at all times. It is about assessing each person's abilities, placing them in the appropriate position, and granting them authority. And finally, you take the responsibility yourself.

Before trying to change the person

Of course, this does not mean that one should never have to do things they are not good at. As long as you are working, there are minimum requirements, and there are cases where acquiring new skills can expand a person's potential.

However, when an organization is not functioning well, it might be wrong to immediately think, "The person lacks motivation" or "They need to grow more."

Before that, there are things the management side should consider.

Is this person really in a place where they can demonstrate their strengths? Do their role and abilities match? Have you granted them sufficient authority? In the first place, is the placement wrong?

Are you keeping a player with a weak arm in center field while only demanding that they make an effort to strengthen their arm?

Change the placement, not the person. Instead of trying to fill their weaknesses, help them develop their strengths. And take responsibility for the results of what you have delegated.

This "Power Pros Theory" I heard from Mr. Ando is a way of thinking that I believe I will recall many times when I think about organizations and people from now on.

Click here for Mr. Ando's X