In the past, at a company's sales meeting, there was an exchange I'll never forget.
To describe it in some detail, the attendees were as follows:
- Executive (Department Manager)
- Leader
- Members (7 people)
The abilities of the seven members were: High, High, Mid, Mid, Mid, Mid, Low.
Imagine a group with two highly capable individuals and one "low performer."
Both the executive and the leader were sharp; they would immediately notice any logical inconsistencies or flaws in their subordinates' reports.
In this setting, a meeting was held regarding the "sales plan" for the next term. The leader served as the chairperson.
The leader proceeded efficiently.
Starting with the sales department's policy for the next term, specific goal settings, and individual roles, the instructions to the members were concise and easy to understand.
Up to this point, there were no issues.
However, the atmosphere changed when the sales reports reflecting on the past year began.
It was understandable. Each member was presenting their past performance and specific future actions; it was impossible not to feel nervous.
The first presentation was by the high-ability ace.
Having naturally achieved this year's goals, their presentation—which painted a picture of the next term's plan that satisfied both the manager and the leader—was flawless.
"I was able to achieve my goals this year. For the factors, please look at the following table; more than half of my sales were generated by XX. This is prominent even compared to last year's trends, and I think it's safe to say a new market is emerging.
Also, regarding XX, which I started as an experimental initiative, I was able to grasp the needs of some customers. However, the results of interviewing 30 existing clients were... Therefore, as a plan for next year..."
Next, three mid-level members presented in succession.
For each presentation, the manager and leader asked a few questions, told them to make some minor corrections to their plans by next week, and the reporting concluded.
It is natural for "capable people" to behave kindly toward those who aren't
Next was the presentation by the "low ability" member.
"Reflecting on this year... the conclusion is that I failed to meet my goals. As for the reason, I think my volume of action was insufficient. I will increase my actions next term.
Next, regarding the plan for the next term, since I haven't been able to listen to stories very well, I want to conduct proper hearings. I want to do my best to achieve my goals next year..."
Listening to it on the spot, that member's presentation was clearly of low quality.
The presentation didn't touch on market analysis, initiatives for new products, or new customer needs.
It was merely an apology for missing the target and a declaration of resolve to work hard next year.
If they had been listening to the capable people's presentations, they should have noticed the shallowness of their own analysis and the crudeness of their plan, but they didn't seem to mind.
For that reason, I was nervous, thinking that this person was about to be intensely grilled by the executive and the leader.
In any sales department, there are one or two low-ability people, and many sales meetings show absolutely no mercy to those who can't perform.
I felt heavy-hearted thinking about the conversation that would follow.
However, the words the leader spoke next were unexpected.
"That sounds good. I definitely want you to do your best."
"Thank you very much."
To be honest, I was a bit surprised because something different from what I imagined had happened. Then, the leader continued.
"By the way, you mentioned that your volume of action was insufficient. Do you have any idea why it was insufficient?"
"Hmm... I was just kind of busy (laughs)."
I thought, "What a half-hearted answer..." but the leader didn't seem angry.
"It might be better to look at the work records later. I understand. Also, starting next term, there's something I'd like you to try during hearings; can we talk later?"
"That's fine!"
After a few more exchanges, the meeting ended.
I had seen so many meetings where leaders grilled members, so after the meeting, I took the plunge and asked the leader why he could stay smiling after hearing that presentation.
"That person's presentation was a bit low-level, wasn't it?"
"Oh, you noticed? That person just can't do it. Expressing their thoughts or persuading with logical thinking."
"Why didn't you point it out? It's not like it doesn't matter, right?"
That's when the executive stepped in.
"I always instruct him to do that. There is nothing good to be gained by pointing it out there. Also, if anything, the reason we don't grill them isn't for their own sake."
"...What do you mean?"
"In short, I'm afraid of the negative impact on others."
"Specifically?"
"Suppose we got angry and grilled them there. Then, the people around them would feel fear. And if you create that kind of atmosphere, you can no longer hope for free and open discussion."
"I see."
"It's a terrible loss to ruin the atmosphere for the sake of one person who can't perform. You can coach the low performer individually. Besides, what do 'average people' think when they see a 'capable person' grilling a 'low performer'? It's human nature to want to side with the weak."
"..."
"That's why it's natural for the 'capable side' to behave with thorough kindness toward those who aren't in front of everyone. It's a management standard."
"If you don't scold them properly, won't you be depriving them of an opportunity to improve?"
"If they were the type of person who realizes things by being scolded, they would have become a 'capable person' a long time ago."
"Psychological Safety" is most important for a team to function well
Quite some time ago, Google conducted extensive research and collected data to clarify what is necessary for an "effective team."
(Reference: https://rework.withgoogle.com/jp/guides/understanding-team-effectiveness/steps/introduction/
Based on information gathered from managers around the world, Google's research team selected 180 teams to study. The breakdown was 115 engineering project teams and 65 sales teams, including both high-performing and low-performing teams. They then investigated how team composition (personality traits of members, sales skills, demographics such as age and gender, etc.) and team dynamics (relationships between team members, etc.) affected team effectiveness. For the research, they used ideas from existing research studies in addition to Google's own experience with team effectiveness.
And the conclusion the Google research team reached was "how the team works together" is more important than "who is on the team."
Specifically, the factors affecting team effectiveness, in order of importance, are:
- Psychological Safety
- Dependability
- Structure and Clarity
- Meaning of Work
- Impact
Among these, the most important is "Psychological Safety"—the belief that "it's okay in this team even if I take actions that might make me seem ignorant, incompetent, negative, or disruptive."
Members of teams with high psychological safety are not anxious about taking risks with other members. They believe there is room to admit their mistakes, ask questions, or present new ideas without anyone mocking or punishing them.
This story was exactly what I witnessed in the sales meeting mentioned above.
Behaving kindly not for the low performer, but for the output of the entire team
Brain scientist Ichiro Iwasaki states, "By treating people with compassion rather than scolding them, they will follow the leader."
Oxytocin, the brain chemical that is the source of "affection," is secreted when people are shown compassion or feel love (affection). For example, brain science research has shown that just feeling happy by attending someone's wedding increases oxytocin secretion by about 15%.
Furthermore, research by Dr. Gamar and others at the University of Lübeck in Germany has shown that oxytocin suppresses the activity of the amygdala, which is said to govern emotions of fear.
The person who is shown compassion experiences an increase in oxytocin levels in the brain. Only then do they become able to overcome the fear of rigorous training and follow the leader.
The reason you can't stick to anything is that your brain remembers your 'useless' self
No matter how good a company is, a certain number of "low performers" will exist.
And in most cases, organizations either strongly demand improvement from "low performers" or try to exclude them.
That's why intense "grilling" occurs.
However, that executive and leader recognized that such actions damage the team's psychological safety and, by extension, damage the output of the entire team.
Therefore, they were taking a kind attitude not "for the person's sake," but "for the output of the entire team."
Thinking about it that way, it is cold-blooded, but not necessarily a bad deal for both parties.
I think people have different likes and dislikes regarding this kind of attitude, but it was a valuable experience where I learned the difficulty and depth of management.
If this article resonated with you, click here for Books&Apps, the media outlet operated by Yuya Adachi → Books&Apps
