Before saying, "Your perspective is too narrow," consider what business leaders really need to re-examine.
"Your perspective is too narrow." I'm sure many CEOs have said this to their executives. In strategy meetings, the opinions of the CEO and executives don't align, and decision-making is delayed. The CEO may not say it out loud, but in their heart they're thinking, "Why can't they talk about anything but such a narrowly focused perspective?"
I often use the phrase "low perspective." I don't really like it. It's a phrase that's too convenient for the person using it, so I end up using it without thinking. Having been in business for over 20 years, it's true that I've encountered many moments where the only way to describe it is that "the perspective is different."
This time, I'd like to share my thoughts on the true nature of words that are convenient for managers but troublesome for employees.
The deceptive nature of the advice, "Adopt a manager's perspective."
First, I want to make it clear that the phrase "raise your perspective" certainly has a deceptive side to it. In a column by Eitaro Hino published on Cybozu Style, he recounts an episode where he was furious when his boss told him to "work with a management perspective" when he was a new graduate. Just because an employee thinks with a management perspective doesn't mean their treatment will be on par with that of a manager, nor does it mean they can truly participate in management. Yet, they are still expected to make a high level of commitment. I think this point is absolutely true.
I myself have never been familiar with the word "normal." My family runs a pottery business, and I played with clay in the factory when I was a child. I never longed for a life where you wear a suit and go to work at the same time every morning (to be precise, as a child I couldn't imagine where adults who wear suits and say "I'm off" go and what they do). That's why I tend to be more defensive than most people when someone tries to fit me into a mold, like saying "think more from the company's perspective."
Nevertheless, I can't bring myself to reject the concept of "perspective" itself; in fact, I like it. That's because differences in perspective do exist, and as a manager, I've seen many instances where this has caused companies to stall. When I'm involved in clients' projects, I often see problems arising from differences in perspective from an objective standpoint.
The problem lies in how the command "raise your perspective" is given, not in the concept of perspective itself. Confusing these two points will lead the discussion in the wrong direction.
Your perspective isn't determined by the rank of your position; it's determined by how you're entrusted with responsibilities.
A few years ago, I had this experience. There was an employee at one of our business partners' subcontractors who was in his third year out of college, and I was shocked when I spoke with him. His speed of decision-making and the clarity of his explanations were just like those of a senior executive. When I asked him why, he replied, "We have a culture here of 'not underestimating new graduates.' We're just given the methods and goals, and then we're encouraged with the assurance that 'you can do it.'"
This one comment made me reflect on my own company. Perhaps we were teaching our new graduates too meticulously. By giving them detailed instructions and anticipating their mistakes, we were inadvertently creating a large number of people who simply "did what they were told."
Here's my opinion on this matter.The level of one's perspective isn't determined by seniority or position. It's determined by the amount of autonomy and goals one is given.The fact that a third-year employee was able to develop a perspective similar to that of a senior executive wasn't due to talent, but because the way they were entrusted with responsibilities was designed that way. Conversely, even at the executive level, if you're constantly restricted to making decisions up to a certain point, your perspective will never broaden. CEOs who criticize their subordinates or executives for having a "low perspective" should first reflect on "how much autonomy they themselves are giving them." This is honestly a difficult truth to hear. It's a truth that hits home for me as well.
However, according to that young person, "Many people can't keep up and end up quitting. It's tough." I was struck by his description: "It's like raising lions, but the employee training is like pushing them off a cliff."
Portfolio thinking is about being prepared to "weigh everything on a scale."
There's a term called "portfolio thinking." Since many people may not be familiar with this term, I'd like to offer my own definition, in addition to the general definition, that fits the context of this perspective. Portfolio thinking is...The ability to weigh not only the merits of a single project at hand, but also multiple options, multiple projects, and multiple resource allocations simultaneously, and to decide where to allocate limited resources.That.
An article published by PHP Institute on "management perspective" lists three characteristics of a management perspective: "a stance of overall optimization," "long-term thinking of 3 to 10 years," and "gathering information from multiple perspectives." While I agree with this, I feel that this explanation alone is still too abstract. The term "overall optimization" sounds good, but in practice it involves making decisions that will be disliked by some, such as "deliberately putting the brakes on department B in order to ensure the success of department A." Portfolio thinking can be said to be, in short, "the resolve to stop trying to please everyone."
No one can suddenly acquire this kind of resolve just by being told to. That's why management needs to provide employees with "experience weighing options," even if it's on a small scale. Let them handle the budget allocation for one department, or let them choose one option from several candidates. I believe this skill can only be developed through accumulating such small "portfolio decisions."
The reason why two people with different perspectives can run a business.
Our company underwent a change of president about 10 years ago. Now, I, the founder, am the chairman, and another person is the president, managing the business. The two of us actually have completely different decision-making styles. I'm the type who excels at "0 to 1," creating systems and concepts from scratch, while the president excels at "1 to N," refining an existing model and expanding it on a large scale.
To be honest, if you try to measure the two of us using only one yardstick—our perspective—you can't determine which is "superior." A 0→1 type perspective and a 1→N type perspective see fundamentally different things. I believe the important thing isn't competing to see who is superior, but rather how to combine these differences within the management team. If the president and I only had the same type of perspective, I think our company would have hit a dead end a long time ago.
The phrase "Your perspective is too narrow" is usually used to mean "You should see the same view as me." But what's truly needed isn't to force people to see the same view, but to create a relationship where people with different perspectives can honestly express their respective viewpoints. If you misunderstand this point, you'll end up with an organization that's like a mass-produced candy, where everyone tries to force others to conform to the CEO's perspective.
Instead of saying, "Raise your perspective," say, "Give them discretion first."
If you feel someone's perspective is too narrow, the first thing you should do is not lecture them, but redesign their autonomy. Give them only the goal, and leave the process to them. Intentionally give them experiences of weighing pros and cons, starting with small tasks. Only by continuing this process will the "high perspective" that managers expect will emerge.
Frankly, this is an inconvenient conclusion for managers. It's much easier to blame someone else for having a "narrow perspective" than to confront one's own design flaws. But whether I'm running a subsidiary in the Philippines or hiring new graduates in Japan, this is something I always feel acutely. People only try to see the bigger picture within the limits of the discretion they're given.
Perhaps it's better not to tell executives and employees to "raise their perspective" anymore... Instead, it might be better to ask, "To what extent do you think you can make decisions on this yourself?" If the answer to this question remains narrow (not what I expect), I think it's a sign that it's not because their perspective is low, but because I haven't yet given them enough autonomy.
A broad perspective is neither an innate quality nor a gift automatically granted by one's position. It's something that anyone can develop depending on the blueprint of how they are entrusted with responsibilities. If there are any managers who feel that someone in their company has a narrow perspective, before blaming that person, I urge you to take stock of the limits of your own perspective. Our company is also in the process of constantly taking that stock of perspectives.
Within an organization, everyone has a role to play. Some roles can only be fulfilled by those with a high-level perspective. I don't think those with a high-level perspective need to force themselves to conform to a lower level. Instead, it's important to consider whether the role design is appropriate to their perspective.
After starting his own business at the age of 26, he has over 20 years of management experience in the design and branding fields. In 2016, he moved with his family to the Philippines and established a local IT outsourcing company, leading its global expansion. Currently, as a "GLOBAL BRANDING AGENCY," he supports the growth of companies while also actively working on organizational reforms within his own company. Based on the real-world struggles and firsthand information he has faced in organizational development and overseas management, he shares practical branding and organizational theories that are thoroughly aligned with the perspective of business leaders.
