How to Build a Self-Propelled Organization (1) | The True Nature of Organizations That Create "Subordinates Who Ask About Everything"

— Why do organizations where managers hold onto decision-making never change?

“My team members ask me about everything right away. I want them to think for themselves, but...”
A manager said this with a tired look on their face.
Apparently, they had answered over a dozen confirmation requests from subordinates just that morning.
This was during a little chat after a meeting.

As I listened to their story, the situation was as follows:
Subordinates come to them with confirmation requests multiple times a day.

The morning is spent just replying to emails. Their own work doesn't progress.
All they are getting done is responding to confirmations.
The work they were supposed to be doing kept getting pushed back.
Even at night, their work is not finished.
While saying, “I wish they would act more proactively,”

that manager was still holding onto everything today.
This story is not rare.
Having observed the front lines of over 200 companies, I have seen a similar scene in organizations where managers are exhausted.

The manager's schedule is filled with meetings.
Between those meetings, small confirmation requests come in via chat or email.
Once they answer one, the next confirmation arrives.
It's not that they aren't working, but they can't get into their own work.
The manager is exhausted. But the subordinates won't act on their own.
It looks like a “people problem.” But even if you try to change it, it doesn't change.

Why?
The problem is not in the people; it is in the design.

I would like to organize that in this article.

The true nature of exhaustion is not the volume of work

When I ask managers who say they are “busy” about the content of their work,
a common thread emerges.
The volume of work they are handling is not that high.

Then what is heavy?
It is the volume of decisions.

“What should I do about this?”
“In this case, which one should I prioritize?”
“This kind of case happened, how should I handle it?”

Each one is small. It can be answered in 5 minutes.
But when they pile up 20 or 30 times a day, that alone is draining.

Exhaustion from a high volume of work and exhaustion from a high volume of decisions are different in quality.
The former decreases if you clear it away.
The latter brings the next decision every time you make one. There is no end in sight.

It is not that there are not enough decisions.
Decisions keep stopping at the manager's desk.
I call this state “decision stagnation.”

What is stagnating is not the volume of work.
It is not the ability of the people either.
It is the flow of decisions.

This is not a lack of effort by the manager. It is a lack of organizational design.
Because the flow of decisions is not designed, subordinates confirm.
The manager answers.
And the entire organization gradually becomes unable to move on its own.

They didn't fail to report. They couldn't report

There are many managers who try to change “subordinates who ask about everything.”
But it rarely changes.
Why? Because it is an environment where subordinates lose out if they “don't ask.”

Let me tell you about a certain workplace.
A staff member who joined mid-career encountered a situation where they were unsure how to decide.
In their previous job, they would have done this. But here, it might be different.
Should I ask, or should I act on my own?
After hesitating, they decided and acted on their own.

The next day, their boss said, “Why didn't you confirm?”
The next time a similar situation arose, that staff member made sure to ask.

This is learning.
But there is something being overlooked here.
Organizations have another rule, separate from work regulations and manuals. That is, “things pointed out in the past.”

If they are pointed out even once, “Why didn't you confirm?”, they will confirm from then on.
If they are told even once, “Don't ask about things like that,” they will stay silent from then on.
Both are the staff member's own form of learning.

Therefore, organizations with too many reports and organizations with reports that are too late
look like completely opposite problems, but the root is the same.
What, when, and to whom to report is not decided.
They are acting based on the memory of past criticisms, not on decision criteria.

The manager's question, “Why didn't you tell me sooner?”, looks like a problem of the staff member's awareness.
But in reality,
it is a problem of an organization where what, when, and to whom to report was not designed.
They didn't fail to report. They couldn't report.

The reason why people who acted proactively stop acting from then on

I often hear the voice on the front lines saying, “I want them to act more proactively.”
But there is something overlooked in these words.

What happens after acting proactively is not designed.
They decided and acted on their own. But the result was slightly different.
At that time, what will the organization do?

Will it confirm the premises of the decision together?
Or will it blame them, saying, “Why did you do it on your own?”
This difference determines the next action.

In an organization where people who act proactively are blamed, people move toward the safe side.
In other words, they either confirm or stay silent.

What the organization really needs to review is not
“Why don't they act proactively?”
It is, “Are we making people who acted proactively unable to act next time?”

It is not that there is no proactivity.
The safety after acting proactively is not designed.

The same goes for managers. They really want to delegate.
But when a problem occurs after delegating, if it remains ambiguous how much is the subordinate's decision and
where the manager's responsibility begins, they cannot hand it over with peace of mind.

Therefore, the manager answers again. The subordinate confirms again.
With that repetition, decisions gather in one person.

The reason why they can't act even when you say “delegate”

Managers who notice that decisions are concentrated have something they do next.
They decide, “Let's delegate more.”
But this often doesn't go well either.

Why? Because there is only the will to “delegate,”
and “what and how much to delegate” has not been verbalized.

From the subordinate's side, it looks like this.
They were told to “delegate.”
But they don't know how far they can act on their own.
If they do too much, they might get angry.
If they act cautiously, they are told they “lack proactivity.”

In the end, they act while confirming. Consultations with the manager do not decrease.
“Delegating” is not a declaration of will, but a matter of design.

What to delegate.
How much decision-making to hand over.
From where do you want them to report up.

If this range is put into words, the subordinate can act. If it is not put into words, no matter how much you say “delegate,” consultations will not stop.

Handing over the range of decision-making means this.
“Please handle this type of response with your own judgment.
However, if it looks like it will become a customer complaint, please let me know in advance.”
With just this, the staff member can make decisions.
Put the “obvious” things in the manager's head into words.
Just by doing that, the way the organization moves changes.

Three things to look at first in an organization where decisions are stagnating

When decisions are gathered at the manager,
the first thing to look at is not “who is bad.”
What you should look at is where the decisions are stopping.

The first is the most common type of confirmation.
Is it customer response, priority, or communication with other departments?
When you understand the type of confirmation, the decision criteria that should be put into words become visible.

The second is why that confirmation does not proceed with the person's own judgment.
Is it because they were strongly pointed out in the past?
Is it because different departments say different things?
Is it because the treatment when failing is ambiguous?
When you understand the reason, it becomes clear what you should design to solve it.

The third is whether the criteria in the manager's head are put into words.
Managers have a sense of “I want this reported” and “this can be delegated.” But if that is not put into words, it is not visible to subordinates.

In an organization driven by invisible criteria, people move toward the safe side.
They either confirm or stay silent.

For example, suppose the theme with many confirmations is “customer response.”
At that time, even if you say “decide more on your own,” the staff member remains unable to act easily. This is because it is not visible which customer responses they can proceed with on their own, and from where they should consult the manager.

What you should look at is the content of the response.
Does it involve a price change? Does the delivery promise change?
Is there a possibility of leading to a complaint?
Is cooperation from other departments necessary? Is a company-level decision necessary?

When you divide it like this,
it becomes visible that not all confirmations have the same weight.

Things that can be proceeded with by the staff member alone.
Things that are fine with post-reporting.
Things you want them to consult about in advance.
Things that the manager should decide.
If this difference is not put into words, the staff member chooses the safe side.
In other words, they either confirm everything or stay silent until the last minute.

What is important is not “consult me about everything” or “think for yourself.”
How far can they act on their own, and from where do we look at it together?
It is to put that boundary into the organization's words.

Why do organizations that try to change people never change?

When you are involved in the front lines of organizations for a long time,
the difference between organizations that change and those that don't becomes visible.

Organizations that don't change try to change people.
“Let's hire people with proactivity.”
“Let's raise them into people who can act more actively.”
“Let's replace them with highly conscious managers.”
This itself is not wrong.
But even if you only change people without changing the design, the same problem is repeated.

The newly joined “proactive person” will also eventually come to act after confirming. This is because the environment where they are pointed out if they don't do so has not changed.

Organizations that change, change the design.
Specifically, they are doing things like this.
Put decision criteria into words.
“You can act on your own in this kind of case.”
“I want you to report up in this kind of case,” the criteria,
the manager verbalizes once.

Organize the design of escalation.
Clearly state what, when, and to whom to report.
Create a state where the staff member knows “what to do if they are lost.”

Decide how to treat people after they act proactively.
The result of deciding and acting on their own,
create a culture of looking back together instead of blaming.
This creates the next proactive action.

These are not large-scale reforms.
The manager, in their own head,
“obvious”starts just by putting it into words.

Having seen 200 companies, what organizations with fast changes had in common
was not speed or scale.
It was that they grasped “what the problem is” as a structure.

When you see a problem as a structure, the solution also changes.
Instead of trying to change people, organize the design of decisions.
That first step becomes the starting point for changing the organization.

First, just put one thing into words

Organizations do not stop because people are weak.
They stop because the flow of decisions is not visible.

Among the decisions the manager is holding, there are things that can originally be returned to the front lines.
Among the things subordinates are confirming, there are things they can originally act on themselves.
Putting that boundary into words. That is the first design for an organization to start running on its own.

You don't have to try to organize all decision criteria from the beginning.
Rather, if you try to create perfect criteria from the beginning, you will stop there.
Organizational design is not something you create once and finish.
It is something you organize little by little while using it on the front lines.

First, choose one of the most common confirmations now.
Regarding that confirmation, write out how the manager thinks and decides each time. And, make the boundary of “up to here is staff judgment” and “from here I want you to consult” into one sentence.

Tell that to the team and try operating it for a while.
If it doesn't go well, you can just fix the criteria.
What is important is not creating the correct answer from the beginning.
The decision criteria that were only in the manager's head,
make them visible to the team.

Criteria that have become visible can be fixed.
Criteria that remain invisible cannot be handled by anyone.

Organizations that go well are not trying to create perfect criteria from the beginning.
First, try operating it for a set period.
On top of that, where hesitation remains, where confirmations did not decrease,
and where it was difficult to use on the front lines, review them.

Decision criteria are not something that must not be changed once decided.
They are something you grow into a form that fits the organization while using them on the front lines.

This is not a story limited to customer response.
It is the same in personnel and labor scenes.
If the boundary between consultations that can be returned by staff judgment and consultations that should be raised to the manager or personnel manager is not put into words, confirmations will occur every time.
In any scene, putting the boundary into words is the starting point.

For example, it is fine to start from a sentence like this.
Please try thinking by replacing it with a common confirmation in your own workplace.
“For inquiries from customers that do not involve price changes, reply with staff judgment. If you are unsure about the judgment, or if it is likely to lead to a complaint, consult before replying.”
Even just this makes it easier for staff to act.
Managers also don't have to answer everything.

What is the most common confirmation in your organization now?
If you were to write that decision criterion in one sentence, how could you write it?
It doesn't have to be a big reform. First, put one decision criterion into words.
From there, the organization will start to move on its own, little by little.

Articles in this series

1. [How to Build a Self-Propelled Organization (1) | The True Nature of Organizations That Create "Subordinates Who Ask About Everything"]
2.[How to Build a Self-Propelled Organization (2) | Because You Are Trying Hard, the Organization Won't Change]
3.[How to Build a Self-Propelled Organization (3) | Reasonable Accommodation Is a Matter of Design]
4.[How to Build a Self-Propelled Organization (4) | Why Did Good-Faith Accommodation Stop Getting Through?]
5. How to Build a Self-Propelled Organization (5) | Employment of People with Disabilities Is a Mirror of the Organization

#CreativeAward2026 #BusinessCategory