Introducing the People and Culture Department's Communication Initiative

In 2024 we entered our fifth fiscal year, and thanks to a great deal of trust and support, we have grown to more than 60 members.

As our team grows, it has become an environment with a wide range of backgrounds, traits, experience, skills and mindsets, and we have more and more opportunities to encounter diverse perspectives. It is truly stimulating to find new surprises and insights during ideation and discussions.

A New Mission for the People and Culture Department

In the People and Culture department, we have been learning and discussing around the theme of "empowering one another through communication."

As a result, we defined the following mission and started our activities in August 2024!

Through communication, support each other's motivation and growth

Our First Initiative

As a first step, to create an opportunity to think about communication, we prepared an explanatory document titled "An Introduction to Empowered Communication."

Starting with this document, we plan to raise awareness by holding ongoing thinking exercises and group discussions on the theme of communication.

We decided to create opportunities to learn about coaching, 1-on-1s and leadership, and to assess the current state of our team by measuring engagement and leadership capability, drawing on the coaching program of Coach Contribution Co., Ltd.

Our company works mainly remotely, and we believe that constructive, consistent communication plays a major role in creating an environment where, even in a diverse team, each member can work comfortably and grow, the team's throughput increases, and we can practice product co-creation effectively.

We plan to share concrete results as they come, so please keep an eye on our future activities. We hope this initiative serves as a useful reference for you, even in a small way.

An Introduction to Empowered Communication

Purpose of this document

1. To show common communication problems within organizations through real examples. These examples highlight the importance of effective communication and create an opportunity to think about how to empower one another. Later, we show an example of an ideal communication approach for each example.

2. To explain our plan for learning and practicing empowered communication

How this document was created

The explanations and examples in this document draw on several books and the coaching program of Coach Contribution Co., Ltd. Coach Contribution Co., Ltd. has provided coaching services for 14 years to support the growth of organizations and individuals, and more than 400 companies have received its support.

Who this document is for

This document is for all members. We believe empowered communication is not one-way communication from leaders to members; it is something that lets us empower one another when everyone understands and practices it. As a first step, read this document and take some time to think about how we can empower one another through communication.

Note:

We recognize that this document does not cover everything. Communicating in a way that empowers one another requires personal learning and experience, a supportive environment, and the building of organizational systems. Through this document, we want to begin a serious effort to foster high motivation and growth.

Note:

Communication is not the only factor in motivation and growth. Other factors include whether the mission and goals are clear, whether they are meaningful to each person and something they want to achieve, and whether responsibilities match each person's expertise and career. We will strengthen these factors as well.

What Is Empowered Communication?

Empowered communication means supporting each other's motivation and growth through appropriate communication.

Let's look at some examples and reflect on why empowered communication matters to us.

Imagine for a moment. You are a member, and you shared an opinion with your leader.

The leader scoffed at it (unconsciously), made fun of it (without bad intent, as a joke), showed obvious irritation in their expression or tone of voice, rejected it outright, cut you off midway to criticize it, said "In my experience, that won't happen," told you your thinking was still naive and to do more research before speaking up, pressed you on what basis you had for such an opinion with no experience, or said "That opinion isn't important right now. Think it through properly before you speak."

Now, will you speak your mind frankly next time?

If, a few days later, the leader said, "Everyone, feel free to say anything. Even small things, let's share our opinions frankly. Bottom-up matters," what would you think?

Could you trust that leader? Would you want to follow that leader? Would you want to work hard for that leader? Would you feel motivated to contribute to the organization's growth in that kind of environment?

Seeing it written out like this, you might think such a thing could never happen.

Unfortunately, however, similar situations occur at many companies.

Imagine once more.

You are a leader.

You are worried that team members do not actively point out flaws or room for improvement in the product's UX or requirements (why are the members so unmotivated, why don't they take quality seriously?). So you sent the team members the following message: "Everyone, let's take more responsibility and work seriously on quality. If we join forces, we can build a better product!" But even after that, you saw no proactive action from the members.

Why might that be?

What if the following had happened in the team a little earlier?

A member found a UX problem in the product and shared it with you, the leader, on Slack. To you, it was not important. You replied to the member: "No need to worry about the UX problem right now. Focus on finishing your assigned tasks!" The member was not convinced, but replied "Understood" and focused on their tasks.

Is the reason for this situation that the members are unmotivated? That the members are not serious about quality?

As the leader, what should you have done?

An organization is made up of members with various backgrounds, traits, experience, skills and mindsets.

And each has some role: engineer, designer, leader, PdM, manager, department head, CEO, CTO, and so on.

Some members have little work experience, while others have long experience of 5 or 10 years.

At some companies, a hierarchy resembling a caste system still exists, in which members with titles such as CEO or department head are treated as superior people. Top-down communication is the norm, meetings are often filled with shouting, and team members either shrink back or stay on edge.

In such an environment, everyone becomes afraid to voice opinions or take on new challenges. As a result, turnover rises and the growth of members and the organization stalls. Some members even develop mental health problems.

We do not want that kind of environment.

In our company, there are only "roles" and "responsibilities."

For example:

• The CEO is neither a genius nor a superior person. The CEO's responsibility is to bring out the full potential of the whole organization, keep it alive, grow it, and move it toward its mission.

• The CTO takes part in setting the organization's goals and strategy and leads the execution of the technology strategy.

Roles and skills differ, but everyone in the organization exists as a "professional."

At some companies, leaders shouting, banging on desks or issuing harsh orders is defined as "management."

They justify themselves by saying, "You have to apply pressure," "It's necessary to make people grow," "You need both the carrot and the stick."

Then they conclude, "That much is only natural. Anyone who can't handle it lacks ability and doesn't need to be here," and repeat the same thing.

We are different.

We do not want to become that kind of organization.

Why?

In an environment where members have a high level of mutual understanding, respect, consideration and compassion, people can share opinions frankly and point out problems.

Such teams are more cooperative, more motivated and more productive.

Many studies show this.

Even without serious harassment (violence, harsh reprimands, attacks on someone's character and so on), small things like a commanding tone, a domineering attitude, or communication lacking understanding and respect damage trust between members, lower members' motivation, and reduce the productivity and quality of their work. It spreads to those around them and quickly eats away at the organization.

For example:

• Sighing pointedly, or letting exasperation show on your face

• Noticing that a team member is struggling but leaving them alone, or taking the work over without giving a proper explanation

• Blaming the other person, even without saying anything abusive out loud

• Pushing your own way of doing things and behaving in a way that belittles how others work

• Teasing someone while adding "just kidding"

• Becoming irritated or using domineering language when results are not as expected or there is a gap in understanding

• When a problem occurs, treating only the members' motivation or ability as the problem

• Looking openly annoyed when asked a question, or acting as if "that much should be obvious"

• When someone gives an opinion, responding with words or behavior that says "you're nitpicking," "you're a pain," or "you don't understand anything"

Even if such things spread throughout an organization, no legal liability arises.

However, if even one such person is in the organization, members hesitate to speak up, and voluntary contributions to the organization drop sharply.

To make up for even a small piece of negative (non-constructive) communication, you need three to five times as much positive effort. As a result, the organization's growth and the quality of its work keep declining. In some cases, the relationship of trust may never be fully repaired.

Some people are resilient to a commanding tone or a domineering attitude. They are people who use such things as a springboard to move toward the goals they are aiming for.

But people with that kind of resilience are a minority. Most people feel stress working in a tense environment, and their work performance declines.

Times are changing. Many things that used to be taken for granted are now often regarded as harassment, exploitation, discrimination or human rights violations. Time and again in the news, practices from a generation ago at large companies, educational institutions and in politics come under fire.

Since it is a fact that gaps in what is considered "good or bad" and "right or wrong" arise between generations and from each person's background, everyone in the organization is required to stay constantly aware of the impact their own actions and words have on the team.

Let's look at three examples.

Example 1

Characters

• Member A: In their third year at the company. A hard worker who finds the job very rewarding

• Member B: Six months at the company

Situation

Member B often waits for instructions and frequently asks, "What should I do?"

At first, Member A answered politely, but gradually began to wonder why Member B didn't read books or articles, take online courses, or look things up on their own. Member A became irritated more and more often. Gradually, Member A came to the impression that Member B lacked enthusiasm for the work and couldn't do what any working adult should be able to do.

From then on, when Member B asked a question, Member A often answered like this:

Look it up before you ask

Don't ask me every little thing, do it yourself

Member B's questions decreased, and some time later Member B decided to leave the company.

When the HR department checked the reasons for Member B's resignation, they were as follows:

I was too scared to ask questions, and it was hard to do my job

Member B had a strong interest in another field, but for company reasons was assigned to the current work, where they had little experience. They had been looking forward to learning a new field, and had felt reassured when the company told them "you can learn carefully from scratch," but they felt betrayed.

When the HR department asked Member A detailed questions about what had happened in order to understand the situation, Member A pushed back. Member A said they didn't see anything wrong with saying "look it up before you ask," because the ability to research on your own is important. After this incident, Member A lost their enthusiasm for the work (and their trust in the HR department and the company), and could no longer deliver results as before.

Was the cause a lack of understanding of each other's situations and expectations? How can we create an environment where members maintain and increase their motivation and grow?

Example 2

Characters

• Boss: Has more than 10 years of experience in the work. Has also worked in a workplace with power harassment. Has received harassment training and is careful about how they interact with team members. Follows a policy of "developing people through praise as much as possible."

• Subordinate: Has little experience, but is an excellent subordinate in the boss's eyes.

Situation

The boss trusted the subordinate and often praised them, saying, "You are very capable," and "Even without detailed instructions from me, you pick up on the background and deliver."

The boss asked the subordinate to create a certain document.

The subordinate completed the document without asking the boss to confirm details or review interim drafts, and showed it to the boss.

The boss was disappointed with the document (it was not what they had pictured), and, with a sigh, carefully explained the purpose of the document, the necessary elements, the steps and so on. Finally, the boss said, "From now on, if anything is unclear or you're unsure about something, feel free to ask me."

If anything is unclear or you're unsure about something, feel free to ask me," the boss said.

The boss never raised their voice and explained carefully so that the same mistake would not happen again.

The subordinate was discouraged and only answered, "Understood."

In response, the boss felt frustrated, thinking, "I'm being so kind to them. What on earth are they unhappy about?"

The subordinate felt that, even though the boss had praised them and trusted them with the work without detailed instructions, the result had been completely rejected. From then on, the subordinate no longer wanted to work with that boss.

Was the cause a contradictory message (a double bind)? How can the document that is needed actually get created?

Example 3

Characters

• Member A: One of the company's early members, who has experienced many tasks and roles

• Member B: A recently joined member. Has little experience but is highly motivated to grow, and particularly wants to improve work processes and increase efficiency.

Situation

Member A has been fed up lately. The reason is that Member B keeps coming up with all sorts of ideas, but from Member A's point of view, the ideas are things that didn't work before or that seem to miss the mark.

Member A told Member B, "We tried that before and it didn't work," but Member B was not convinced.

Member A said, "If you really want to do it, go ahead and try."

Member B carried out the idea, but it did not work.

Member A said, "I told you so," and "That was a waste."

After that, Member B began asking, "What should I do?" and "How have you done this until now?"

Member A got irritated and pushed them away: "Think for yourself a little. Someone who can't do this much on their own isn't suited for this job."

Member B left the company.

Member A told HR, "People like Member B aren't suited for this job. Next time, hire someone who can think more for themselves."

Was the cause the asymmetry of experience and information? How can Member B's motivation be put to use for the organization's growth?

These are just a few examples, but without proper learning and organizational systems, such things spread through an organization. The harm reaches not only the motivation of Member A and Member B, but also the members around them. The loss to the organization is immeasurable.

Regardless of role or skill level, if members can share opinions with each other in a healthy way and get their work done comfortably and productively, the growth of both members and the organization accelerates.

This is by no means about creating a cozy, family-like environment, a "lukewarm" environment where people compromise without saying what they want to say, an environment without pressure, an environment where anything goes, an environment with no criticism or feedback, or an environment that does not set high goals. In such environments there is little learning and little challenge, and in the end neither the members nor the organization grows.

What we aim for is "the top-right block = a good environment and a high level of work."

Let's try to understand human beings a little.

People do not understand themselves or others well; they make assumptions on their own, form expectations, and become anxious, hurt, angry or sad.

When people encounter a different interpretation or an opposing opinion, their defensive instincts kick in and they try to protect themselves. They try to justify themselves.

Biases lurk everywhere.

These are human instincts. Without awareness and training, we cannot resist our instincts.

Everyone has different sensibilities, and even when people experience the same thing, they do not feel or think the same way. Even if we all look at the same flower and say "beautiful," one person may find its color beautiful and another its shape. Even if we like the same color, why and how we like it may differ. We can never fully understand anyone else.

Each of us has different sensibilities, and therefore different values; therefore we feel different emotions about the same event and reach conclusions through different logic.

In technical terms, we say that each of us has a different "mental model."

That is exactly why we must first question our own common sense. We must be humble. We must be compassionate. We must strive to know and understand each other and the situation.

We need to make a habit of thinking about why the situation occurred, what the facts are, how the other person understands it, what the other person values, what the other person is struggling with, what the other person is feeling, how we ourselves are, how the organization's systems work, what we ourselves should do, and so on.

We must not react to situations by reflex. We must not implicitly assume that something is a given. We must not implicitly expect something. We must not rush to blame others.

Let's look at one more example here.

Characters

• A: Team leader

• B: Team member

Situation

A asked B to create a certain document. A plans to present the document to a client. From A's point of view, it was not a very difficult task, and A expected that B would surely be able to do it. B was also happy to be entrusted with creating the document and started right away.

B created the document and showed it to A.

A was disappointed with the finished document. A thought, "I wanted the document to be of sufficient quality to present to the client, but B didn't deliver, and now I'm in trouble." Then A said to B, "I think this is something easy to do. It's a problem if you can't do even this much."

B, though confused, only said "I'm sorry," and fell silent.

From then on, A and B each came to feel uncomfortable with the other.

What do you think each of them could have done to avoid this situation? What kind of systems do you think the organization should have?

The more people are pressed by deadlines and responsibilities, the less room they have to think about "system" problems. They lose the room to choose their words. They start blaming the other person to make them understand the pressure they are under. Without realizing it, they behave in ways that make the other person feel incompetent or guilty.

To look at a situation calmly and recognize "system" issues, you need spare resources, both in time and psychologically.

Let's look at one more example.

Characters

• A: Team leader

• B: A member who recently joined the team

Situation

A asked B to do a certain task.

Considering that B had recently joined the team (and lacked experience), A gave detailed instructions about the task.

B is highly motivated and wants to make things better. So B actively proposed ideas. A did not reject the ideas, and said, "Let's try that another time."

A thought to themselves, "B lacks experience, and we also need to finish the task by the deadline, so for now I want B to do it the way we've always done it."

B went on to talk about other ideas as well.

A cut B off midway and said, "Sorry, let's follow the procedure for now."

B looked surprised and replied, "Understood." From then on, B stopped sharing ideas and decided to simply do what they were told.

B came to feel that the work wasn't enjoyable and that they weren't growing, and changed jobs.

Can we say that an effort was made to understand each other's situations and needs?

What kind of sustainable systems does an organization need?

I think many people have had the thought "work isn't easy" or "it's their fault for not being able to do what any working adult should" cross their minds at least once. This tendency is especially strong among people who have carried heavy responsibilities. When people run out of room, they try to reach conclusions easily. In other words, "blaming others" is the easiest thing. But it eats away at the company.

Question

What do you think about "a person who repeats the same mistake no matter how many times you tell them the same thing"?

• Why don't they learn?

• Don't they even have basic ability?

• Why are they so unmotivated?

• Are they making fun of me?

• This is hopeless. I don't want to work with them

If you start communicating with thoughts like these, they will inevitably show in your words and actions. Your emotions may run high and come out as actions such as raising your voice or banging the desk.

So what should you do?

"Rather than treating it as an individual's problem, put your mind to areas such as the organization's mechanisms, the flow of work, and its rules and culture."

Example

• Member A: Senior engineer

• Member B: Junior engineer

Situation

When Member A reviewed Member B's code, Member A felt there were many things that seemed like careless mistakes.

Member A pointed out the problems to Member B and asked them to reduce such mistakes.

Some time later, Member A had another opportunity to review Member B's code. Member A noticed the same kind of mistakes as last time.

Member A thought to themselves, "I pointed this out last time too, so why is Member B making the same kind of mistakes? You can't call this being motivated about the work, and their attitude toward quality is far too lax. You can't call this doing the job."

Member A held back what they felt inside and pointed out the problems again. Then Member A said, "I pointed out these problems before, so please make sure they don't happen again."

Member A expected that surely this would lead to improvement.

However, some time later, Member A learned that the same problem was happening again, and was disheartened.

Member A then told Member B's manager the following:

"Member B makes the same mistakes over and over. There are problems with their comprehension, their attitude toward work, and the quality of their work, so there is no prospect of improvement. It's not good to keep them on the team any longer. It would be better for the team if people like this left soon."

Should the company let Member B go, as Member A advised?

How you perceive a problem changes your interpretation, words, actions and judgments.

Do you attribute the problem to the other person, or can you treat the problem as a "phenomenon," understand its structure, and then think through how you, the other person and the organization are involved?

The former is simply blaming others. The latter is "systems thinking."

• The requirements never get decided, so work can't start

• The same problem keeps recurring, but no measures to prevent recurrence are taken

• You requested a task, but there is no report

• You requested a text translation, but it still hasn't been translated after several days

• You requested a bug fix, but it still isn't in the production environment after a day

• No deadline has been set for a task

• You proposed an improvement at a management meeting, but nothing has improved

• Someone said they would let you know the results of something, but there has been no report

• You said we should do Scrum, but we still aren't doing it

And so on.

What would you do if you encountered situations like these? What should we do?

How to Prevent Communication Conflicts

When a problem occurs, first remember that we have "a responsibility to empower one another constructively." Then think about completing the task and solving the problem separately. First, work together to complete the task. Next, move on to solving the problem as a team.

1. Rather than solving the problem on the spot, first align understanding and expectations, and focus on completing the task in front of you. For example, if a bug release is delayed, instead of blaming emotionally with "Why hasn't it been released after two days? Why haven't you reported? Do you understand that the PO is waiting?", communicate that releasing the bug fix is the top priority, confirm that it is fine for other tasks to be delayed (or take another option), check the current progress of the bug fix, and decide together when it can be released. In other words, first complete the work while supporting each other through constructive communication.

2. Add the problem to the backlog and deal with it later as a team. Add it as a problem with the situation, not a problem with the member. Prevent recurrence through reflection, and improve the "organizational system" without blaming others or ourselves.

Spreading and Practicing Empowered Communication Across the Organization

To spread and practice empowered communication across the organization, we will take the following measures.

Creating opportunities to think and learn:

• The P&C (People and Culture) department will post communication-related messages and videos on Slack once or twice a month.

• Every month, we will run thinking exercises with some members and share the results with the whole company. We will analyze specific cases, define the ideal state, and plan how to improve. Group discussions will be based on past case studies from within the company and case studies found in books and on the internet. We will start without support from outside experts, but will find experts if needed.

• We will explain our communication policy to members before hiring.

• We will add an explanation of the communication policy to the onboarding flow.

• We will run coaching programs and one-on-one training for leaders and managers.

• We will run an empowered communication program for everyone.

Regular reviews:

• We will run self-check surveys and engagement surveys to evaluate communication.

Strengthening relationships:

• We will build stronger relationships through team-building activities.

Having a way to share and discuss communication problems:

• In one-on-one meetings, managers will ask about good communication and areas for improvement.

• We will create a private Slack channel dedicated to the P&C department to discuss communication problems.

How we handle conflicts:

1. Share the problem with your manager or the P&C (People and Culture) department. The manager reports the situation to the P&C department.

2. The P&C department asks the members involved to take time to reflect.

3. The P&C department sets up a meeting with the team to understand the problem.

4. The P&C department works with other managers to update guidelines, organizational systems, workflows and so on, and shares them with the whole company.