Good accompaniment support, ineffective accompaniment support—looking at the difference in approach, not the results.
Good accompaniment support, ineffective accompaniment support
—looking at the difference in approach, not the results.
So far, we have looked at the thinking and processes of accompaniment support based on the Growth Driver Theory.
In this article, I will organize why there is a difference in results even when both are called "accompaniment support."
The important thing is not to judge good or bad based on short-term results.
Whether sales have increased.
Whether measures have been executed.
The quality of accompaniment support cannot be measured by that alone.
The difference appears in at what point the supporter intervenes, what they do, and what they do not do.
■ Common characteristics of ineffective accompaniment support
First, let's organize the typical characteristics seen in ineffective accompaniment support.
The first is being too hasty in solving problems.
Accompaniment supporter:
"Looking at the diagnosis results, this area is weak. Let's start with this measure first."
With this approach, the diagnosis becomes a "device for deriving the correct answer" rather than a "tool for organizing thoughts."
As a result, the manager is handed options before they have a chance to think for themselves.
From the perspective of Growth Driver Theory, this is an intervention that moves only one driver first.
Because changes occur without confirming consistency with other drivers, the propagation of influence is likely to become distorted.
■ Support that rushes a "manager who already understands"
The second characteristic is perceiving the manager's hesitation as "resistance."
Manager:
"I know I should do it, but..."
If the accompaniment supporter replies to this by saying,
"If you know, then let's do it,"
the support stops there.
This hesitation is not laziness.
It is a state of unconsciously sensing the propagation of influence.
If I change the philosophy, what will happen to the front lines?
If I change the structure, what will happen to the relationships of trust?
The manager is thinking about these things simultaneously.
Accompaniment support fails when it tries to eliminate hesitation.
If you push through instead of organizing the hesitation, the manager's autonomy in decision-making weakens.
■ Perspectives common to good accompaniment support
On the other hand, good accompaniment support has several common points.
First, the supporter continues to look at the "whole."
They are always conscious of which driver a single measure or statement affects and how it ripples to others.
Accompaniment supporter:
"If you make this decision,
how do you think the actions on the front lines will change?"
This question is not seeking a correct answer.
It is a question to look over the chain of influence together.
■ The decision to delay intervention
In good accompaniment support, there are many scenes where the supporter intentionally delays intervention.
Manager:
"Should I decide soon?"
Accompaniment supporter:
"You can decide at any time. Why don't we organize the influence a little more before doing so?"
This interaction might look like it is delaying results.
However, in reality, it is improving the quality of the decision.
Growth Driver Theory gives the supporter the option of "not moving now."
This is a decision that becomes possible precisely because they anticipate the propagation of influence.
■ Good accompaniment support returns the manager to the subject.
The greatest characteristic of good accompaniment support is that the manager becomes the subject again.
Manager:
"I will decide this."
When these words come out, the support is moving in the right direction.
It is not because the supporter is excellent.
It is because the manager's own judgment criteria are being organized.
The purpose of accompaniment support based on Growth Driver Theory is
not to provide the correct answer,
but to create a state where the manager can take responsibility for their own decisions.
■ Results follow later
Finally, I want to confirm the positioning of results.
In good accompaniment support, results are not the goal, but appear as a consequence.
Decisions are organized.
The structure of hesitation becomes visible.
Small actions accumulate consistently.
As a result, changes in sales and the organization appear.
In the next article, I will organize what kind of strengths are required of the supporter themselves to support this kind of accompaniment.
I will focus on the "way of being of the supporter," not on theories or techniques.