The Leadership Japan Series cover art

The Leadership Japan Series

The Leadership Japan Series

By: Dale Carnegie Japan
Listen for free

About this listen

 Leading in Japan is distinct and different from other countries. The language, culture and size of the economy make sure of that. We can learn by trial and error or we can draw on real world practical experience and save ourselves a lot of friction, wear and tear. This podcasts offers hundreds of episodes packed with value, insights and perspectives on leading here. The only other podcast on Japan which can match the depth and breadth of this Leadership Japan Series podcast is the Japan's Top Business interviews podcast.© 2022 Dale Carnegie Training. All Rights Reserved. Economics Management Management & Leadership
Episodes
  • Performance Appraisals

    Performance Appraisals
    Feb 4 2026
    Performance appraisals are one of the hardest jobs in leadership because they affect promotions, bonuses, bigger responsibilities — and sometimes who gets shown the door. That's why both sides of the table get tense: employees feel judged, and bosses often feel like they're being asked to play "merchant of doom" inside a system they may not even agree with. Why do performance appraisals feel so stressful for both bosses and employees? Performance appraisals feel stressful because the stakes are real and the conversation is deeply personal. When someone's pay, promotion prospects, or continued employment is on the line, even good performers can get nervous — and many managers get uncomfortable delivering blunt feedback. This stress spikes in different ways across contexts. In Japan and other high-harmony cultures, managers may avoid direct critique and staff may read between the lines, which can leave the "real message" unspoken. In the US and parts of Europe, the feedback can be more direct, but the legal and HR risk can make leaders cautious and scripted. In multinationals, calibration meetings (HR, department heads, regional heads) add pressure; in SMEs, it's often the owner-manager doing it without any training. Do now: Treat the appraisal as a leadership skill — prepare like you would for a major client pitch. Is forced ranking and "bottom 10%" performance appraisal still a problem? Forced ranking creates fear and politics because someone must lose by design, even if the team is solid. Leaders hate those meetings where everyone is plotted on a bell curve and the "bottom group" becomes a target — not always because they're hopeless, but because the organisation needs a number to cut. Historically, forced ranking got popular in big corporate systems (the GE/Jack Welch era still gets cited), but it can backfire in modern work where collaboration is the productivity engine. In a startup, a forced curve can be absurd because every role is critical and teams are tiny. In a Japanese corporate setting, it can feel especially brutal because loyalty is valued, and the manager becomes the "executioner" of a process they may see as flawed. Do now: If your organisation calibrates on a curve, focus your energy on clear standards and documented evidence — not defending by emotion. What is the RAVE framework for doing performance appraisals properly? RAVE is a simple formula that makes appraisals clearer, fairer, and more future-focused: Review, Analyse, Vision, Encourage. "Review" anchors the discussion in the role's results description and the "should be" standard, instead of vibes. "Analyse" looks at the "as is" reality using the person's monthly project list and key business elements — where they're strong, where they're short, and why. "Vision" shifts the conversation forward: what does future success look like, what gaps must close, and what support is needed? "Encourage" prevents the classic failure mode where the meeting demotivates the person; the leader's communication style decides whether the employee leaves engaged or defeated. Do now: Write R-A-V-E at the top of your prep notes and build the meeting around those four moves. How do you "Review" performance results without drowning in subjective judgement? You review performance by starting with the "should be" standard and tying feedback to observable results. When roles are numbers-heavy (sales targets, margin, project delivery dates, customer retention), the "ideal outcomes" are usually obvious. The danger zone is qualitative work — leadership, teamwork, judgment, communication — where managers slip into the fog of opinion. That's where you need standards: specific behaviours, clear expectations, and real examples. In a multinational, this might mean competency frameworks and leadership models; in an SME, it can be a simple scorecard with defined behaviours. In Japan, be careful of over-relying on "effort" or "attitude" as a proxy for results; in the US, be careful of over-relying on numbers without context (territory, market conditions, team dependencies). Do now: Bring three examples: one win, one gap, one pattern — all tied to the role standard. How do you "Analyse" monthly projects and decide if it's a performance issue or a role-fit issue? You analyse performance by comparing the person's "as is" output to the "should be" goals and asking whether the job matches their capacity. This is the tough leadership fork in the road: is the person in the right role, and can they realistically meet the level the organisation needs? If they're falling short, the next decision is not moral — it's practical. Sometimes you can redesign the job, move them into a better fit, or coach the missing capability. Other times, the gap is too large and the organisation will replace them with someone more capable. That doesn't make them "bad"; it means the requirements outgrew them. Do now: Identify the root cause: skill gap, ...
    Show More Show Less
    12 mins
  • How To Get Performance Alignment

    How To Get Performance Alignment
    Jan 28 2026
    When an organisation has lots of moving parts, coordination becomes a competitive advantage. Divisional rivalries, egos, "not invented here," and personal competition can quietly shred performance, while external shocks—regulatory changes, competitor M&A, natural disasters, and market movements—keep landing on your desk. The leader's job is to create solid alignment between what the company needs and what individuals actually do every day. What is performance alignment and why does it matter in 2025-era organisations? Performance alignment is the tight fit between company direction and individual behaviour so the business operates like one smooth machine. Without alignment, internal friction beats you before the market does—teams compete instead of coordinate, priorities conflict, and effort gets wasted on "busy work" that looks active but doesn't move results. In post-pandemic business (2020–2025), this got harder: hybrid work increased miscommunication, supply chains became less predictable, and regulation shifts plus competitor consolidation raised complexity. In Japan, alignment can be strong once decisions land, but slower if consensus and cross-division coordination drags. In the US, execution can be fast, but priorities can splinter if each function runs its own agenda. In multinationals, the "moving parts" problem is amplified; in SMEs, a single misalignment can derail the whole plan. Do now: Write the one-line "main game" for this quarter and check every team goal against it. How do vision and mission create alignment across divisions and teams? Vision and mission align performance by clarifying where you're going and what you will (and won't) do to get there. Vision is the window to a brighter future and the goals for where you want to be—and there's usually a macro company vision plus a unit-level vision that translates strategy into local execution. When teams can "juxtapose" their contribution to the enterprise vision, motivation rises because people can see how their work matters. Mission then adds operational clarity by defining purpose and boundaries, preventing scattergun activity. This is where big organisations often win: leaders at firms like Toyota or Unilever typically cascade strategy into unit-level execution targets; startups do it faster, but sometimes leave it implicit, which can cause drift as the company scales. Do now: Rewrite your unit vision in one sentence that shows exactly how it supports the enterprise vision. How do shared values drive engagement and commitment (especially across cultures)? Shared values align performance because they act as the cultural glue that keeps behaviour consistent under pressure. Values aren't posters—they're the rules of the road for how decisions get made, how conflict gets handled, and what "good" looks like when nobody is watching. The hard truth is the personal value spectrum is extremely varied, so alignment doesn't happen by accident. Leaders have to make values explicit, visible, and reinforced through recognition and consequences. In Japan, values often support harmony and consistency, but can also discourage constructive challenge if not balanced. In the US, values may champion individual initiative, but can turn into silos if each team's "value" becomes their private religion. In both contexts, values determine whether people truly commit or just comply. Do now: Pick 3 values and define the observable behaviours that prove each one in meetings, customer work, and decision-making. What is a position goal and how does it motivate teams to perform? A position goal aligns performance by giving teams a clear competitive target: where do we want to rank? That could mean market share dominance, profitability leadership, or rapid growth—inside your industry, sector, or even within your own global organisation. This is powerful because many teams feel isolated and assume their work doesn't make much difference. A visible ranking goal (top ten by revenue, number one in customer retention, highest NPS in the region) turns effort into identity and recognition. In large enterprises, position goals can be highly motivating because teams can see how they compare globally. In SMEs, position goals should be chosen carefully—too grand and they feel fake; too small and they don't inspire. Consumer sectors may chase share; B2B may prioritise margin and renewal stability. Do now: Choose one position goal for 2026 and define the single metric that proves it. How do KRAs, standards, and activities translate strategy into daily execution? KRAs, standards, and activities align performance by turning "strategy" into measurable work that gets done consistently. Key Result Areas (KRAs) identify where results must be achieved and what matters most; constant measurement and broadcasting keeps focus. Performance standards then create objectivity—use frameworks like SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, ...
    Show More Show Less
    13 mins
  • The Planning Process

    The Planning Process
    Jan 21 2026
    Planning is what stops "good intentions" turning into chaos. When teams skip planning, they don't just risk missing the deadline — they risk building the wrong thing, burning budget, and exhausting people on rework. A repeatable planning process keeps everyone aligned on outcomes, realities, actions, timelines, resources, and risks, so execution becomes calmer and faster. What is the planning process and why does it matter? The planning process is a repeatable way to define the outcome, map reality, set goals, design action steps, set timelines, allocate resources, plan contingencies, and track progress. It matters because most teams jump straight into the nitty gritty — meetings, tasks, and urgent emails — and mistake motion for progress. Post-pandemic (2020–2026), that "rush to action" has intensified as organisations face tighter budgets, hybrid teams, and faster competitive cycles. In multinationals (think Toyota-scale) you'll see more structure — governance, stage gates, and risk reviews — while SMEs and startups often rely on speed and intuition. Both can win, but both fail when they don't define "finished" early. In Japan, planning can be stronger in discipline but weaker in challenge if people copy seniors; in the US, planning can be faster but thinner if teams overvalue action. Do now: Write one sentence: "We will deliver ___ by ___ so that ___ improves." What is the first step in planning a project? The first step is defining the desired outcome so everyone shares the same destination. If the outcome is vague ("improve customer service"), the plan becomes a debate and execution becomes random. Better outcomes are specific, measurable, and tied to customer impact: reduce onboarding from 14 days to 3, cut defects by 20%, lift renewal rates by 5% by Q3. This is where leaders must "sell" the outcome, not just announce it. People aren't robots; they need to see why it matters, how it connects to strategy, and what trade-offs it requires. Use familiar frameworks to sharpen the outcome: SMART goals, OKRs (Objective + Key Results), or a simple "metric + deadline + owner." Consumer businesses may prioritise speed and experience; B2B firms may prioritise reliability and risk. Do now: Define 3 success measures (metric, deadline, owner) for your outcome. How do you assess the current situation before making a plan? You assess the current situation by establishing a clear baseline with facts, not opinions. You can't plan the route if you don't agree on the starting point. Capture the "as-is" reality: cycle time, backlog size, defect rate, conversion rate, churn, staffing capacity, supplier constraints, approval bottlenecks — whatever defines today's performance. Big firms may pull dashboards and market intelligence; smaller firms may rely on interviews and spreadsheets. Either works if it's accurate. This step prevents the classic argument later: "Did we actually improve?" It also exposes hidden constraints early (for example, a dependency on one overworked specialist, or a vendor lead time that makes your timeline impossible). Across cultures, the trap is the same: assumptions feel efficient until they prove expensive. Do now: List 10 baseline facts and agree: "This is our starting line." How should leaders set goals that actually get achieved? Leaders set achievable goals by breaking big targets into a hierarchy and translating them into weekly and daily units. A goal that can't be converted into actions is just a wish. Start with the outcome, then cascade: quarterly goals → monthly milestones → weekly targets → daily actions. Be realistic about constraints. Startups may set aggressive targets and iterate fast; regulated industries or complex global teams may need more conservative targets because governance, procurement, and compliance add time. In Japan, goal-setting can suffer if people avoid challenging targets to preserve harmony; in the US, it can suffer if targets are ambitious but under-resourced. Either way, align goals with capability, prioritise ruthlessly, and make ownership explicit. Do now: Build a "goal ladder" and assign one accountable owner per milestone. What makes action steps and time frames workable in the real world? Workable action steps name the work, the owner, the sequence, the dependencies, and the barriers — then lock them to real deadlines. This is where plans often collapse: the intent is clear, but the execution design is missing. Strong planning includes task allocation, coordination across teams, sequencing (what must happen first), supervision cadence, and known blockers. Then you set time frames that people respect by tying dates to deliverables, not vibes. Tools like a simple milestone calendar, a Gantt chart for complex work, or Agile sprints/Kanban for flow-based work can help — but the tool won't save you if "done" isn't defined. Deadlines should be explicit, shared, and reviewed, especially in hybrid teams spread across time zones. Do...
    Show More Show Less
    13 mins
No reviews yet
In the spirit of reconciliation, Audible acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.