Fearless Proposal to the Boss: Courage more than KY
In Japanese culture, the social protocol calls for utmost attention to the right "atmosphere." Certain actions can only be considered appropriate when the "atmosphere" of the time and place allowed for them to be carried out. In Japanese lingo, it is "reading the air" (空気を読む）and for every person deemed to be lacking in such skill, the term "KY" ("cannot read the air, "Kuki Yomenai," 空気読めない) is ruthlessly (albeit sometimes jokingly) applied. The presence of these KY people is definitely a source of massive awkwardness and discomforting bluntness in any social gathering, whether work-related or otherwise.
Well, being careful to avoid KY-ness is obviously of high importance in certain work conditions. In the presence of one's superiors, or worse, external guests, doing anything KY, i.e. making overly argumentative comments against the others, aggressively doing something that should be reserved to the superiors, and so forth, as a new graduate, is bound to be highly humiliating and irritating for the superiors. (In China, such thing is called "not giving face" 面子...a concept too narrowly defined in Japan to be applied here)
And, thus, an innocent concept followed by people in all situations to avoid social taboos have somehow, like everything and every situation in Japan, become a physical manifestation of "class differences" within the work environment. By citing KY, the superiors hint that the subordinates should think twice (and many many more times) before they open their mouth and do something (really, anything) without consent in front of people with authority and power. KY, far from its original purpose to avoid social gaffs, have become the convenient excuse for preserving conservative social hierarchy and suppress dissenting opinions before they become public.
And all this in a country and company that tries to become more global (here we go again...). The premise for anyone to tolerate any sort of hierarchical structure is that those on the top of the hierarchy do have much knowledge and experience that those on the bottom can quickly learn from to improving their own chances of moving up the hierarchy. But, in a rapidly changing conceptual space where being global is suddenly valued over many other skills, the hierarchy breaks down: those on the top represent the conservative inward-looking nativists seeking to preserve the existing order against excess "foreign influences."
Dissent is the open communication to announce the approaching irrelevance of these hierarchical "elders." At its initial minority status, dissent may only be noticed, and then quickly ignored, as a few violent outbursts of anti-social behavior. But at some point, the momentum gathers enough so that more and more original defenders of the existing order become doubtful of its viability in the current form. Calls for reform, even small and insignificant ones, appear, causing alarming backlashes from the still steadfast loyalists of the existing order.
A recent incident at Rakuten may have finally brought this struggle into the open. A new grad directly emailed the CEO asking for a format change in an all-company meeting, proposing that the CEO take questions directly from the employees at the meeting. I mean, how KY could it be to ask for a forum of "common peoples'" voices in a company that actively runs a personality cult of its founder-owner-president-CEO (we have done everything to qualify for that, perhaps with the exception of hanging his picture in every room).
But the idea passed. And it passed after it was soundly berated by the head of HR dept, after being filtered by the CEO Office, and being shuffled among the thousands of emails the big Boss receives everyday. That by itself is an achievement. It does not matter whether or not the Q & A Session is effective (as many openly doubts); the simple move of sending a gutsy novel idea directly to the Boss (skipping the consenting of all the middle managers and executives) shows that, despite all that is said about strict hierarchy, the CEO's door (and mind) is still open if you are willing to overlook such perceived strictness.
If KY means the opinions of the individuals cannot be heard by those with power to implement them, then KY can only be a recipe for suppressing peaceful reforms and fomenting violent revolutions. To propose new ideas, thus, should not simply be just because the ideas are good, but because KY can be weakened and ultimately be replaced with a universal "flat" egalitarian mindset. And finally, its all about raining on the parade of the yes-men like the head of HR and the silent, passive employees, who are convinced of the existing order's infallibility and their ability to simply depend on its unchanging seniority system for future success.
Well, being careful to avoid KY-ness is obviously of high importance in certain work conditions. In the presence of one's superiors, or worse, external guests, doing anything KY, i.e. making overly argumentative comments against the others, aggressively doing something that should be reserved to the superiors, and so forth, as a new graduate, is bound to be highly humiliating and irritating for the superiors. (In China, such thing is called "not giving face" 面子...a concept too narrowly defined in Japan to be applied here)
And, thus, an innocent concept followed by people in all situations to avoid social taboos have somehow, like everything and every situation in Japan, become a physical manifestation of "class differences" within the work environment. By citing KY, the superiors hint that the subordinates should think twice (and many many more times) before they open their mouth and do something (really, anything) without consent in front of people with authority and power. KY, far from its original purpose to avoid social gaffs, have become the convenient excuse for preserving conservative social hierarchy and suppress dissenting opinions before they become public.
And all this in a country and company that tries to become more global (here we go again...). The premise for anyone to tolerate any sort of hierarchical structure is that those on the top of the hierarchy do have much knowledge and experience that those on the bottom can quickly learn from to improving their own chances of moving up the hierarchy. But, in a rapidly changing conceptual space where being global is suddenly valued over many other skills, the hierarchy breaks down: those on the top represent the conservative inward-looking nativists seeking to preserve the existing order against excess "foreign influences."
Dissent is the open communication to announce the approaching irrelevance of these hierarchical "elders." At its initial minority status, dissent may only be noticed, and then quickly ignored, as a few violent outbursts of anti-social behavior. But at some point, the momentum gathers enough so that more and more original defenders of the existing order become doubtful of its viability in the current form. Calls for reform, even small and insignificant ones, appear, causing alarming backlashes from the still steadfast loyalists of the existing order.
A recent incident at Rakuten may have finally brought this struggle into the open. A new grad directly emailed the CEO asking for a format change in an all-company meeting, proposing that the CEO take questions directly from the employees at the meeting. I mean, how KY could it be to ask for a forum of "common peoples'" voices in a company that actively runs a personality cult of its founder-owner-president-CEO (we have done everything to qualify for that, perhaps with the exception of hanging his picture in every room).
But the idea passed. And it passed after it was soundly berated by the head of HR dept, after being filtered by the CEO Office, and being shuffled among the thousands of emails the big Boss receives everyday. That by itself is an achievement. It does not matter whether or not the Q & A Session is effective (as many openly doubts); the simple move of sending a gutsy novel idea directly to the Boss (skipping the consenting of all the middle managers and executives) shows that, despite all that is said about strict hierarchy, the CEO's door (and mind) is still open if you are willing to overlook such perceived strictness.
If KY means the opinions of the individuals cannot be heard by those with power to implement them, then KY can only be a recipe for suppressing peaceful reforms and fomenting violent revolutions. To propose new ideas, thus, should not simply be just because the ideas are good, but because KY can be weakened and ultimately be replaced with a universal "flat" egalitarian mindset. And finally, its all about raining on the parade of the yes-men like the head of HR and the silent, passive employees, who are convinced of the existing order's infallibility and their ability to simply depend on its unchanging seniority system for future success.
Comments
Post a Comment