“1on1, the center of its limits and possibilities” Maxwell’s HOIKORO Co., Ltd./ HYAKUNEN releases the second part of a research report that reveals the effectiveness of the recently popular personnel policy “1on1” *Consulente HYAKUNEN Co., Ltd.*
Press release: August 23, 2024
**
“1on1, the center of its limits and possibilities” Maxwell’s HOIKORO Co., Ltd./ HYAKUNEN releases the second part of a research report that reveals the effectiveness of the recently popular personnel policy “1on1” *-HR Dada Report No. 2 “1on1, its limits and the center of
possibility” [Part 2] What is 1on1 required of a boss who is not good at creating psychological safety? *
Maxell’s HOIKORO Co., Ltd.
Hoikoro (Representative: Masami Maeyama, Headquarters: Nishi-ku, Osaka City, Osaka Prefecture) is a startup company that provides
“TSUISEE”, which claims to be “the only survey application that realizes true human capital management.” This time, consulting firm Consulente Co., Ltd.
We have created a report on the contents of the “1on1” survey that was published at the online event “HR Dada” jointly held with HYAKUNEN, and have released the second part.
* What is “HR Dada”? About the meaning of sending a report*
We, Maxwell’s HOIKORO Co., Ltd., Consulente HYAKUNEN
Hyakunen) has analyzed data on people and organizations and provided consulting to all kinds of companies.
In fact, we have struggled in the field of transforming people and organizations, gained a lot of knowledge from that field, and continue our activities today.
Many of you reading this have at least once in the past felt the need to improve the state of your own organization, “want to intervene with people and organizations,” “want to change the organization.” Isn’t it?
What exactly should I change?
Read books and articles that introduce the latest HR policies and keywords, and use those as hints to observe your own organization. However, it is difficult to see with certainty what it takes to change an organization.
I don’t know for sure, but I definitely feel that things aren’t going well. When that happens, we have no choice but to introduce measures and measures by saying, “Other companies are doing it, so let’s just…”.
If there is a management team that is indifferent to people or the organization, it will be easier to gain understanding if the measures are in line with those of other companies.
Perhaps in this way, one keyword or policy will gain citizenship in the HR industry.
The introduction of measures that appear to be the latest and “popular” becomes an end in itself, and we end up repeatedly working for that purpose.
In fact, in recent years, we have seen a repeating cycle of trends emerging and disappearing in the HR field.
Looking back, I see that there are quite a few people in charge who have spent several years being swayed by such trends.
Before we know it, our attitude of sincerely dealing with people and organizations is being swallowed up by a strange cycle.
Giving misleading information to people who are seriously concerned about a person or organization.
Year by year, we feel it is more meaningful to distance ourselves from this attitude and disseminate information from a professional standpoint.
At the event we host – HR Dada – and its reports, we share the down-to-earth, down-to-earth, honest, and sincere knowledge that we can provide because we have experience in numerous intervention sites.
*Uncomfort with “1on1” [Part 2]*
In the second issue of HR Dada Report, following the first issue, we will deliver the contents of the second part, which deals with “1on1″ as the subject.
When we, as consultants, ask people to talk about “1on1,” we often hear that they say, “I think the atmosphere within the company has changed since incorporating 1on1.”
On the other hand, there are people who are skeptical about the effectiveness of 1on1 and are by no means in the minority, saying, “Is 1on1 really effective? I don’t think it makes any sense.”
While “1on1” is expected to change the atmosphere within the company, some people are disappointed, saying “I don’t think it has any meaning.”
Based on the results of these multiple interviews alone, it seems impossible to say that “1on1” is a panacea that will solve or alleviate all problems within the company.
Furthermore, in the first part of the “1on1” special feature in the first issue of the report, we confirmed the following results. When bosses who lack management skills engage in open one-on-one discussions with their subordinates, their subordinates’ performance improves.
From this result alone, it can be interpreted that “1on1” has a useful effect. However, a more detailed analysis from a different perspective revealed results that were far from favorable.
“1on1” is by no means a panacea for changing people and organizations. In the second part of this paper, we persistently approach the reality of “1on1″.
In this report, we will discuss the theme of “What kind of 1on1 is required of a boss who is not good at creating psychological safety?”
* -HR Dada Report No. 2 “1on1″ [Part 2] What kind of 1on1 is required of a boss who is not good at creating psychological safety? * Ever since Harvard Business School’s Amy Edmondson proposed it nearly 25 years ago, psychological safety has been considered one of the prerequisites for creating innovative and vibrant teams and
workplaces.
However, the reality is that creating psychological safety in teams and workplaces is not easy. For example, let’s say your boss tells you, “I want you to talk to me about anything,” and “It’s okay to fail.” Can you imagine facing your work at that moment, feeling safe and secure from the depths of your heart? Additionally, you may have had the experience of being able to have small talk unrelated to work, but not expressing your true feelings or opinions to create new value at work because it might conflict.
“I cannot expect the managers at my company to demonstrate leadership that creates psychological safety.” Based on such judgment, 1on1 is burdened with expectations that it will definitely produce positive effects. Regarding this, [Part 1] also expressed it as “1on1 being treated like a trash can”*.
“It’s probably difficult for my managers to create psychological safety through their daily work.However, it shouldn’t be impossible if they get close to their subordinates through one-on-one interviews and create an open space. I have no doubt that this will lead to an innovative and vibrant team and workplace.”
Is it really possible to fulfill this expected role through 1on1? Let’s consider this based on the results of a survey of approximately 1,000 businesspeople.
*HR Dada Report No. 1 1on1 Special Feature Part 1: “1on1 being treated like a trash can”
[Figure 1] The two bar graphs on the right show the highest level of subordinates’ change-creating behavior (vertical axis). The two bars on the right show cases where there is a boss who has the power to create psychological safety. At this time, 1on1 does not affect the subordinate’s behavior. On the other hand, there is a height gap between the two bar graphs on the left. Therefore, 1on1 seems to compensate for the boss’s weaknesses.
First, look at the bar graph in Figure 1. The height of the bar indicates the extent to which subordinates are willing to make a difference in their work. This behavior is said to be more likely to occur in workplaces where psychological safety is guaranteed. In fact, you can see that the two bar graphs on the right (red and gray pair) are at similar high levels. From this it becomes clear that: Workplaces with bosses who can create psychological safety in their daily work create a climate in which their subordinates can take creative actions. And whether one-on-one discussions about work are held or not, there is no difference in the change-creating behavior of subordinates.
Conversely, the two bar graphs on the left have significantly different heights. This shows that bosses who are not good at creating psychological safety can increase their subordinates’ change-creating behavior by having one-on-one conversations about work.
From this result, it can be said that 1on1 is compensating for the boss’s weaknesses. However, it is difficult to meet the expectations for 1on1, that is, “Even though it is difficult to achieve
psychological safety in everyday work, one-on-one interviews can create a safe and secure environment.” It hasn’t been done. For bosses who are not good at creating psychological safety, the one-on-one meetings they should have in order to increase the creativity of their subordinates are 1-on-1s where they talk about work. More precisely, it is a 1-on-1 meeting that focuses on tasks, conveying the roles that subordinates should play and instructions and advice on how to carry them out.
This is qualitatively very different from the generally expected 1on1 style, which emphasizes being close to subordinates, valuing diversity and openness, and emphasizing psychological safety.
[Figure 2] When comparing the pair of red and gray bar graphs on the left and right, at first glance you can see that there is a large difference in height between the pair on the right. This means that 1on1s significantly increase subordinates’ change-making behavior when they are willing to ask their colleagues for help.
What kind of subordinates show an increase in change-creating behavior after having one-on-one conversations about work? Figure 2 shows the results of such an analysis. You can see that there is a larger gap in the height of the bar graphs in the pair of bar graphs on the right compared to the pair of bar graphs on the left. This means that subordinates who had a one-on-one conversation with their boss about their work and then voluntarily asked for help from their colleagues were able to take action to make a difference.
There is nothing surprising about the finding that asking for help from others is a condition for creating change. When it comes to trying something new, there are limits to what you can accomplish on your own. In particular, the bigger, more difficult, and more valuable the challenge, the more help you will need.
However, what is strange about Figure 2 is, “Why did subordinates start asking for help in workplaces that lack psychological safety?” In general, in workplaces that recognize diversity and uniqueness and do not tolerate mistakes or failures, employees feel anxious and fearful, such as, “If I ask for help, I might be disliked or my evaluation might be lowered.” I feel it. Therefore, it is not easy to ask for help from those around you. So why is it that a one-on-one meeting with your boss allows you to overcome such a high hurdle to asking for help?
This is by no means a simple and optimistic reason, such as “through 1on1, psychological safety in the workplace has increased.” Further analysis revealed that, rather, it was because “by applying strong pressure to subordinates through 1on1 sessions, subordinates were forced to seek help from those around them.”
[Figure 3] The bar graph on the far right shows the highest degree of subordinates asking for help from those around them (vertical axis). Talking about work one-on-one while putting pressure on people to express their creativity has the greatest effect.
Look at the bar graph in Figure 3. The bar graph on the far right shows a boss who puts pressure on his subordinates to be highly creative when conducting 1on1 discussions about work. In addition, “the graph is at the highest level” = “subordinates will
desperately seek help from those around them.” On the other hand, the second bar graph from the left shows that although they had 1on1s to talk about work, they did not apply such pressure, so “the graph is at a low level” = “1on1s led to the behavior of asking for help from those around you.” This indicates that there is no connection. After all, for bosses who are not good at creating psychological safety, the 1on1 required to encourage change-creating behavior in subordinates is to push subordinates to be innovative by applying strong pressure for high goals and results. It’s 1on1. This is because one-on-one activities generally lead to creativity, such as, “By creating a place where superiors and subordinates can interact in a safe and secure atmosphere, bottom-up ideas from subordinates can be generated independently…” The reality is completely different from what is told as a story of contribution.
Through [Part 1] and [Part 2], we have confirmed the results of a survey regarding the true nature of the discomfort of 1on1. The results of a large-scale survey show that whether a boss lacks management skills or a boss who is not good at creating psychological safety, there is no one-on-one ability to replace the weaknesses of his/her partner. That was the fact.
At first glance, it seemed that the 1on1 sessions improved the performance of the subordinates. However, it turns out that the key to this is senior employees who are in charge of management in place of their superiors, and strong top-down pressure. This was created through a completely different mechanism from the role that is generally expected for 1on1.
Therefore, it is dangerous to view 1on1 as a panacea, such as “1on1 dialogue between superiors and subordinates will solve ____.” It is not a way of thinking that leads to results or value. What is required is to investigate and analyze the effects of 1on1 in detail, and to conduct a study based on the mechanism of “in what cases and what kind of 1on1 is effective?”
We are currently conducting further research and analysis to answer this question. In the future, we would like to continue to share the knowledge we have discovered about 1on1 with everyone in various places.
Maxwell’s HOIKORO Co., Ltd.
Chief Development Officer
Associate Professor, Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Business Administration, Musashino University
Takuto Shishido
*If you wish to use the contents of this report, please comply with copyright laws and clearly indicate the source.
[Click here to download the report]
https://tsuisee.com/report/
[Click here to apply to participate in the second “HR Dada”] https://www.maxwellshoikoro.com/event
【Company Profile】
Maxell’s HOIKORO Co., Ltd.
Representative Director and President Masasuke Maeyama
TOSABORI IVY 3rd floor, 2-1-6 Tosabori, Nishi-ku, Osaka City, Osaka Prefecture URL (provided application) https://tsuisee.com
URL (our website) https://www.maxwellshoikoro.com
Cooperation: Consulente HYAKUNEN Co., Ltd.
URL http://hyakunen.com