long and slow consensus building that weighs existing stakeholder's opinions heavily vs doing "the right thing" from the outset. So you move slowly and end up having very annoying conversations and compromises instead of just pushing something through. And the formal process is just a formality anyways, so then anyone not in the informal chatter just gets to experience the capriciousness anyways

The sort of consensus building ultimately involves having to do stuff to make people's opinions feel taken care of, even if their concerns are outright wrong. And you end up having to make some awkward deals.

Like with all this "Japanese business culture" stuff though, I feel like it's pretty universal in some degrees or another everywhere. Who's out there just doing things without getting _any_ form of backchannel checking first? Who wants to be surprised at random announcements from people you're working with? Apart from Musk types.

But of course some people are very comfortable just ripping the band aid off and putting people in awkward spots, because "of course" they have the right opinion and plan already.

Why context matters in judging whether some practice is good or not.

▲

ssivark 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Peter Drucker has an interesting analysis of the "American" -vs- "Japanese" styles of decision-making + alignment, presenting a complementary perspective: https://www.joaomordomo.com/files/books/ebooks/Peter%20Druck...

IMHO the only correct way to measure the effectiveness of decision making is from the quality of executed outcomes. It is somewhat nonsensical to sever decisions from execution, and claim that decisions have been made rapidly if the decision doesn't lend itself to crisp execution. Without that, decisions are merely intentions.

▲

moonlet 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Who cares if they’re wrong? The point is respect for their opinions and feelings since you’ll have to work with them for twenty years. If you respect them, you get to do what you want to do and they won’t fuck with you or shoot down your proposal.

To be clear this is Japan we’re talking about with the twenty years part. The same thing applies in the US but on smaller timescales though. If people feel appreciated and respected and you have good relationships, they will basically back whatever you want.

	▲	rtpg an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		To be clear I'm describing a point of view, but not always ascribing to it. I tend to lean towards thinking backchanneling makes sense as a general vibe, if only because it's a way of doing things that lets people have dignity, and the costs _can be_ low.
	▲	rester324 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I think this is a very naive take. Japanese people will blame you for any failure regardless if you respect them or not. And many times failures happen in japan exactly because people are sitting around doing nothing without acting even when it's urgent to make decision. Backstabbing and toxicity is the major feature of japanese business culture

▲

armada651 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Move fast and break stuff didn't work out much better though.

▲

rtpg 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah sure, I feel like back channeling stuff is generally just the respectful thing to do, so I'm not on the side of the debate I'm expanding upon in most cases.

Just that lacking context one really can't make that many blanket statements.

▲

ivell 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Not only respectful. Also it ensures that all different aspects of a decision is considered before making the decision. If not aligned with all parties, we would miss important flaws in the plan. It is just a sensible thing to do.

	▲	rtpg an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> If not aligned with all parties, we would miss important flaws in the plan. I think the difficult cases come when people's interests aren't aligned. If you're coordinating with a vendor to basically detangle yourself from their vendor-specific tooling to be able to move away from them, at some level it doesn't really make sense to read them in on that. There are degrees to this, and I think you can argue both sides here (so ultimately it's a question of what you want to do), but parties are rarely neutral. So the tough discussions come from ones where one party is going to be losing out on something.

▲

palmotea 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> long and slow consensus building that weighs existing stakeholder's opinions heavily vs doing "the right thing" from the outset.

How do you know what "the right thing" is at the outset without talking to the stakeholders?

I'm dealing with someone's "the right thing" that is actually wrong and dumb. They didn't ask us before rolling out the new "standard."

	▲	rtpg an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Some people are very confident in their understanding of a problem! Others will discount the validity of the stakeholders involved having good judgement. I think most people have at least one issue where they discount one of the stakeholder's judgement, it's all fairly contextual. But hey, if you're the CEO of some company you have the ability to act on that discounting.