How does Growth Driver Theory perceive management? — Reading the state of a company from the overall structure of management.

In the previous article, I organized the reasons why managers fall into a state of "knowing what to do but being unable to act" as a problem of decision-making.

In this article, I will look at how Growth Driver Theory perceives management as a framework for organizing that hesitation.

Growth Driver Theory does not attempt to explain management through a single cause.

Sales are down, so the sales department is weak. People are quitting, so the HR system is bad. Employees aren't taking action, so their motivation is low.

Such explanations may seem easy to understand at first glance.

However, in an actual company, a single phenomenon is not born from just one cause.

Behind employees not taking on challenges, there may be an atmosphere that avoids failure. Behind that atmosphere, there may be problems with evaluation or work processes. Furthermore, behind that, there may be the manager's tendency in judgment or a gap between philosophy and actual decision-making.

In other words, the phenomena occurring in a company are born from multiple factors influencing each other.

In Growth Driver Theory, management is perceived as a structure composed of multiple drivers (Higashibuchi, 2017, 2020).

What is important is not to rush to decide "what is wrong."

Which driver is in what state? And in what kind of structure is that state being created?

First, it is to quietly look at the overall picture.

Growth Driver Theory is a theory that shows the structure by which a company grows as a good company.

And its framework is also a map for calmly taking a bird's-eye view of management.

Before judging good or bad, first look at the whole.

Look at the state of the company three-dimensionally, including the relationships between drivers. Furthermore, look at it as something moving within a time axis.

This perspective becomes extremely important in accompaniment support.

The results of a "company health check" become important material for that purpose.

However, what is necessary before that is an attitude of trying to see the entire management, rather than cutting out only parts.

This is also a fundamental attitude for those who support management.

Viewing management through five drivers.

Growth Driver Theory views management broadly across five areas.
These are the main drivers.

・Management (The Leader)
・Management Philosophy/Vision
・Business Model
・Systematization/Standardization
・Behavioral Environment

The "Management" referred to here is not merely the president as a job title.

It is the leader as the subject who takes responsibility for final decision-making, possesses their own criteria for judgment, and sets the direction.

Management philosophy and vision are not about whether they are posted, but whether they are actually referenced in real decisions and actions.

A business model is a mechanism for value creation: who you provide value to, what kind of value you provide, and how you generate revenue.

Systematization and standardization are mechanisms to make work and decision-making reproducible, rather than relying solely on individual effort.

The behavioral environment is the state in which employees are placed, including systems and culture, that influences how easily they can take certain actions.

What is important is that these are not arranged in a hierarchical relationship.

The five drivers interact with each other to form the entire structure of the company.

Philosophy influences the behavioral environment.
However, the behavioral environment also influences the entrenchment of the philosophy.

Systematization influences employee behavior.
However, if the behavioral environment on the ground changes, the nature of the systematization also changes.

The business model influences the behavior required of employees.
However, if the behavioral environment changes, the feasibility of the business model also changes.

And the leader's judgment influences the philosophy, systems, and behavioral environment.
At the same time, the state of the workplace and the reality of the business also influence the leader's judgment.

Management is something that moves within these interactions.

When it looks like a "people problem," is it really a people problem?

One of the most common consultations in the field of hands-on support is about "people problems."

Leader
"My employees just wait for instructions and don't think or act on their own."

When they hear this, many supporters think of human resource development or mindset reform.

However, in Growth Driver Theory, the way questions are framed changes.

Companion Supporter
“What kind of environment or mechanisms might be in the background that make it difficult for employees to think and act on their own?”

Business Owner
“...If they fail, I immediately correct them.”

Companion Supporter
“In that case, it might not just be a matter of the employees' mindset, but also related to how the business owner interacts with them and the mechanisms for delegating work.”

Through this dialogue, the focus shifts from the individual employee to the business owner's way of interacting, how work is delegated, decision-making criteria, and how failures are handled.

Growth Driver Theory prevents problems from being pushed onto specific individuals.

This is because blaming individuals closes off the room for improvement in management.

In many cases, phenomena occurring in a company are born not from the people themselves, but from the structure surrounding them.

That is precisely why we must first look at the structure.

A business owner's judgment shapes the behavioral environment.

Here is another example.

Business Owner
“Even though we say ‘let’s take on challenges’ in our management philosophy, in actual judgment, we end up avoiding failure.”

What is visible first with these words is a state where a gap has emerged between the business owner's own judgment and the philosophy they uphold.

It is not that the philosophy is wrong.
Also, it is not a simple matter of the business owner having low execution capability.

In actual management decisions, various factors are involved, not just the philosophy, such as cash flow, impact on customers, the burden on employees, and past experiences with failure.

Within that, even if the philosophy advocates for taking on challenges, failure avoidance may be prioritized in specific decision-making situations.

What is important here is that such judgment does not remain solely within the business owner as an individual.

When a business owner repeatedly makes failure-avoiding judgments, the employees are watching those judgments.

Employees learn from actual decision-making and daily reactions, not just from the words of the philosophy.

"What is valued in this company?"
"How far am I allowed to challenge myself?"
"How am I treated when I fail?"

they sense these things.

As a result, an environment can form throughout the organization where avoiding failure is prioritized over taking on challenges.

In other words, what we are looking at here is not simply a story about the manager failing to take on challenges.

It is a structure where the manager's decision-making tendencies weaken the connection to the philosophy, which in turn influences the behavioral environment and manifests as the employees' behavioral tendencies.

Growth Driver Theory visualizes such gaps and chains of influence as a structure.

Through this visualization, managers no longer need to keep blaming themselves.

Instead,

"Which accumulation of decisions is creating what kind of behavioral environment?"
"Where should we start adjusting to begin changing the overall structure?"

constructive questions like these arise.

Why start with a diagnosis?

In the coaching support based on Growth Driver Theory, we do not think about solutions right away.

In many cases, we start with a diagnosis first.

Manager
"When I hear the word 'diagnosis,' I feel like I'm being evaluated, so I get a bit defensive."

Coach
"It is not to determine good or bad.
It is to see the current state of the company as a structure."

The diagnosis is not for ranking companies.

It is a mirror for seeing through the actual situation of the company and its management as a structure.

What is important here is not to think simply that 'a low driver value equals a bad company'.

Every company has its own strengths and weaknesses.

Therefore, in the diagnosis, first,

We will examine "what state each driver is currently in."

We will look at it.

How is the philosophy? How is the systemization? How is the behavioral environment?

First, it is important to look at the state of each driver itself.

On top of that,

"why it is in that state"

we will look at it structurally.

There,

・To what extent the driver itself is formed ・How the drivers are connected to each other ・How the mutual influence cycle is working

we will look at these.

In other words, in Growth Driver Theory,

"the state of each driver"

not only,

"in what kind of structure that state is being created"

we are looking at.

Sub-drivers are perspectives for objectively viewing the behavioral environment.

In addition to the five main drivers, Growth Driver Theory has five sub-drivers.

・Stretch ・Support ・Autonomy ・Discipline ・Trust

These are important components that shape the behavioral environment (Higashibuchi, 2017, 2020).

Sub-drivers are not for classifying people's personalities or emotions.

Furthermore, it is not a checklist that simply evaluates 'what is missing'.

What kind of behavior is likely to emerge within the organization? And what kind of behavior is becoming difficult to emerge?

Sub-drivers are perspectives for objectively identifying the structure of that behavioral environment.

For example, if a state exists where challenges are unlikely to occur, it is possible that stretch formation has weakened.

What we are looking at here is not that 'employees lack a spirit of challenge'.

Are there opportunities to aim for high goals? Is challenging welcomed? Are failures treated as learning opportunities? Do questions that go beyond maintaining the status quo exist within the organization?

We are looking at the state of such challenging environments.

If support and backing during failure are weak, it is possible that support formation is insufficient.

What we are looking at here is not a simple matter of 'poor interpersonal relationships among employees'.

When a challenge is taken, do managers and supervisors provide supportive engagement? When a failure occurs, is there an attempt to connect it to learning and growth rather than just ending with assigning blame? Is there a state where it is easy to consult when in trouble? Does supportive engagement exist that allows for action with peace of mind?

We are looking at the state of such support environments.

When initiative is difficult to cultivate, the connection between autonomy and discipline may be weak.

What we are looking at here is not that 'employees lack initiative'.

Is the scope of delegation clear? Are judgment criteria shared? Are there rules or frameworks for moving freely? Is there room designed for making one's own judgments?

We are looking at the state of such behavioral environments.

Also, if there is a state where it is difficult to consult with peace of mind, it is possible that trust formation has weakened.

What we are looking at here is not an impression-based argument that 'interpersonal relationships are bad'.

Is there a place where one can speak their true feelings? Is there a relationship that makes it easy to cooperate across positions and departments? Are promises kept and is there consistency in judgment? Is there a state where one does not have to excessively doubt the other party's intentions?

We are looking at the state of such relational environments.

In this way, sub-drivers do not directly analyze the personalities of individual employees or the emotions of managers.

It is a framework for structurally understanding the behavioral environment from the perspectives of stretch, support, autonomy, discipline, and trust.

Growth Driver Theory does not attempt to change people directly; instead, it seeks to change behavioral tendencies themselves by examining the structure of the behavioral environment.

Sub-drivers provide important perspectives for this purpose.

The theory functions precisely because it does not take center stage.

As we have seen so far, Growth Driver Theory, main drivers, and sub-drivers rarely come to the forefront in the context of accompaniment support.

This is because the goal is not to explain the theory.

The theory is not meant to judge the merits of each driver.

It is used to quietly re-examine the state of a company as a structure.

Within the supporter,

to refine questions, to restrain intervention, and to calm impatience.

The theory exists for that purpose.

That is why accompaniment support does not become ad-hoc advice.

It becomes support that backs the manager from behind, allowing them to think, judge, and organize things for themselves.

For an accompaniment supporter, Growth Driver Theory is not a 'theory for making management correct.'

If I had to say,

it is a 'theory that prevents looking at management only through its parts.'

is what it is.

In the next article, assuming this theoretical map, we will look at what accompaniment support is as a whole process.

References

March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. Free Press.

Noriyuki Higashibuchi (2017). "An Approach to Building a Good Company Based on Growth Driver Theory," Matsuyama University Review, Vol. 29, No. 3, 55–100.

Noriyuki Higashibuchi (2020). "New Horizons in Comprehensive Management Diagnosis Opened by Growth Driver Theory: Its Theory and Practical Reports," Journal of the Japan Association of Management Consulting, 19, 50–56.