Maxell’s HOIKORO Co., Ltd. (CEO: Maeyama Masami, Head Office: Nishi-ku, Osaka City, Osaka Prefecture) is a startup that offers “TSUISEE,” a survey application claimed to be “the only true human capital management tool.” This report covers the “1on1” survey results shared during the online event “HR DADA,” held in collaboration with consulting firm Consulente HYAKUNEN Co., Ltd., along with the second part of the findings.
What is “HR Dada”? What is the significance of releasing this report?
Maxwell’s HOIKORO Inc. and Consulente HYAKUNEN Inc. analyze data about people and organizations, providing consulting services across various companies.
Having worked on the ground to effect change within individuals and organizations, we have gathered substantial knowledge from our experiences and continue our efforts in this area.
Many of you reading this might have contemplated the need to enhance the current state of your organization, expressing a desire to “intervene between people and organizations” or “transform the organization.”
What specific changes should we implement?
I often read books and articles that present the latest human resource policies and keywords, using them as guidelines for observing my organization.
Nevertheless, it remains challenging to pinpoint precisely what is essential for organizational change.
Despite the uncertainty, there is undoubtedly a discomfort stemming from the sense that things are not functioning well. In response, one might introduce measures and strategies, thinking, “Other companies are doing it, so for now…”
In organizations where management shows indifference to members, it becomes easier to justify measures that align with industry standards.
Perhaps, through this tendency, a single keyword or policy may gain traction in the HR sector.
The adoption of trendy policies often becomes an end in itself, with individuals finding themselves working solely to achieve that objective.
In fact, trends in the HR domain have circulated rapidly in recent years.
Reflecting on this, it appears that many individuals in leadership positions have recently been caught up in such trends.
Unbeknownst to us, the genuine commitment to engaging with people and organizations can be drawn into a peculiar cycle.
Misleading those genuinely concerned about the welfare of individuals or organizations can occur.
As the years go on, we feel an increasing imperative to distance ourselves from such attitudes and to disseminate information from a professional viewpoint.
At our event, HR Dada, and in our reports, we share insights that are humble, steady, honest, and sincere, derived from our extensive experience in various intervention scenarios.
The Discomfort of “1on1” [Part 2]
In the second edition of the HR Dada Report, we will continue from the first issue, focusing on the theme of “1on1.”
When we consult with individuals about their experiences with 1on1 meetings, they frequently mention, “I feel that the atmosphere in the company has shifted since we initiated 1on1s.”
Conversely, many remain skeptical, questioning, “Is 1on1 truly effective? I doubt its worth.”
While there are expectations that “1on1” meetings will enhance the organizational atmosphere, disappointments also arise, with some stating they “don’t find it meaningful.”
Based solely on these various interviews, it cannot be definitively concluded that “1on1” is a universal solution to all internal challenges.
Moreover, in the first part of the “1on1” special feature from our initial report, we identified the following results:
When a manager, lacking in management skills, conducts an “open one-on-one” where they engage supportively with their subordinates, the subordinates’ performance tends to improve.
This outcome suggests that “1on1” can have a beneficial impact.
However, a more nuanced analysis from another perspective revealed results that were less convenient.
“1on1” is not, by any means, a singular solution for transforming people and organizations.
In this second part, we will delve deeper into the realities of “1on1.”
This report will address the topic: “What kind of 1-on-1 meetings are necessary for managers who struggle to create psychological safety?”
HR DADA Report No. 2 “1on1” [Part 2]: What type of 1on1 is needed for managers who are not skilled at fostering psychological safety?
Psychological safety, proposed by Amy Edmondson of Harvard Business School around 25 years ago, has been recognized as a crucial factor in nurturing innovative and vibrant teams and workplaces.
However, in practice, creating psychological safety in teams or workplaces is no small feat. For example, if your boss says, “I want you to share anything,” and “Making mistakes is acceptable,” can you truly work with a profound sense of security and safety in your heart at that moment? Many may have experienced situations where, “I can talk about trivial matters not related to work, but I refrain from sharing my genuine feelings or opinions on generating new value at work, fearing it could cause conflict.”
The sentiment of “I cannot expect the managers in my company to exemplify leadership fostering psychological safety” prevails. Under such circumstances, expectations from 1on1s can produce positive outcomes. In the first part of this article, I labeled this phenomenon “1on1s being treated as waste receptacles.”
“It is likely that our managers will find it challenging to establish psychological safety in their routine work. However, they could certainly support their subordinates through one-on-one meetings, creating an open environment. I believe that these cumulative efforts will gradually foster innovative and vibrant changes in the team and workplace.”
Can 1on1s genuinely fulfill these anticipated roles? Let’s explore this based on a survey conducted with roughly 1,000 business professionals.
*From the first part of the “1-on-1” feature in the initial HR Dada Report: “1-on-1s treated as waste receptacles.”
[Figure 1] The two bars on the right illustrate the highest levels of change-driving behavior (vertical axis) among subordinates. In these instances, the boss possesses the ability to foster psychological safety. Therefore, 1on1s do not influence the behavior of the subordinates. Conversely, there is a noticeable height difference between the two bars on the left, indicating that 1on1 meetings compensate for the deficiencies of the boss.First, examine the bar graph in Figure 1. The bar heights reflect the extent to which subordinates strive to instigate change within their work. This behavior is notably more likely to occur in workplaces where psychological safety is assured. You can observe that the bar graphs on the right (red and gray pairs) are similarly elevated, illustrating that:
In environments where managers can cultivate psychological safety through their daily interactions, a culture exists that encourages subordinates to engage in creative actions. Their one-on-one meetings do not significantly affect the change-driven behaviors of these subordinates.
In contrast, the two bars on the left display considerable height disparity. This suggests that for managers who struggle to create psychological safety, holding one-on-one meetings to discuss work can enhance change-driving behaviors among their subordinates.
This indicates that 1on1 meetings compensate for the deficiencies of superiors. However, they fall short of fulfilling the expectations surrounding 1on1s, which are intended to create a safe environment, even when psychological safety is not feasible in everyday work.
For managers lacking proficiency in fostering psychological safety, the 1-on-1 that encourages their subordinates’ creativity should be one that discusses work tasks. More specifically, it should focus on clarifying the subordinate’s role and providing guidance and advice on performing that role.
This approach significantly diverges from the commonly expected 1-on-1s that aim to support subordinates, appreciate diversity and openness, and emphasize psychological safety.
[Figure 2] When comparing the pairs of red and gray bars on the left and right, there is an obvious height difference. This indicates that 1on1 meetings significantly enhance the change-driving behavior of subordinates when they actively seek assistance from their colleagues.Which subordinates exhibit increased change-driving behavior after participating in a work-focused 1-on-1? Figure 2 presents the analytical results. Comparing the left and right bar graphs reveals a marked height difference, indicating that subordinates who sought help from colleagues following a work-related 1-on-1 with their boss were able to take proactive steps toward creating change.
This finding underscores the principle that seeking help is essential for initiating change. When confronting a new challenge, relying solely on individual effort has its limitations. Particularly for greater, more challenging, and valuable tasks, one often needs assistance.
What is peculiar about Figure 2, however, is the question: “Why did subordinates begin reaching out for help in a workplace devoid of psychological safety?” Typically, in environments that do not embrace diversity, uniqueness, or mistakes, employees experience anxiety and fear that asking for help could result in disfavor or affect their evaluations. Consequently, asking for assistance can be quite difficult. So, what enabled a single 1-on-1 with a superior to overcome such substantial barriers to seeking help?
This outcome is not attributable to a simple or optimistic assumption that “one-on-one meetings have increased the workplace’s psychological safety.”
Further examination revealed that the cause lay in the idea that “1-on-1s exerted significant pressure on subordinates, compelling them to seek assistance from those around them.”
[Figure 3] The rightmost bar graph displays the highest degree of subordinates requesting assistance from others (vertical axis). Discussing work during one-on-one meetings, combined with pressure to demonstrate creativity, yields the strongest effect.Examine the bar graphs in Figure 3. The rightmost bar graph represents a boss who presses their subordinate to be highly creative during a work-focused 1-on-1. Additionally, the height of “the graph at the highest level” indicates that “the subordinate becomes highly motivated to request support from those around them.” In contrast, the second bar graph from the left illustrates that while a 1-on-1 to discuss work was conducted, the absence of pressure resulted in “the graph at a low level,” meaning that “the 1-on-1 did not prompt the behavior of soliciting help from others.”
Ultimately, for managers struggling to foster psychological safety, the required 1-on-1 to promote change-driven behavior among subordinates is one that applies substantial pressure on them to achieve high goals and results, pushing them to innovate. This stands in stark contrast to the generally portrayed narrative that 1-on-1s enhance creativity by fostering a secure atmosphere for boss-subordinate communication, cultivating independent bottom-up ideas from subordinates.
Throughout both parts of this report, we have examined survey results that reveal the true nature of the discomfort associated with 1on1s. The findings of a comprehensive survey suggest that 1on1s cannot replace the deficiencies of superiors who either lack management skills or are ineffective in establishing psychological safety.
At first glance, it may appear that 1on1s enhance subordinates’ performance. However, the underlying factor appears to be the strong, top-down pressure applied by senior employees stepping in for their less effective superiors. This reflects an entirely different mechanism from what is typically expected of 1on1s.
Consequently, treating 1on1s as a panacea—saying that “1on1 discussions between superiors and subordinates solve XX”—is misguided. Such a mindset does not lead to tangible results or value. It is essential to thoroughly investigate and analyze the impacts of 1on1, focusing on determining “in what circumstances and what type of 1on1 proves effective.”
We are currently undertaking further research and analysis to answer this critical question. We will continue to share insights gained regarding 1on1 in various platforms.
Maxwell’s HOIKORO Co., Ltd.
Chief Development Officer
Associate Professor, Department of Business Administration, Musashino University
Takuto Shishido
*If you utilize any content from this report, please adhere to copyright regulations and clearly cite the source.
Download the report here
[Click here to register for the second “HR Dada” event]
【Company Profile】
Maxell’s HOIKORO Co., Ltd.
President and CEO: Masanori Maeyama
2-1-6 TOSABORI IVY 3rd floor, Tosabori, Nishi-ku, Osaka City, Osaka Prefecture
Cooperation: Consulente HYAKUNEN Co., Ltd.
Understanding Maxell’s HOIKORO Co., Ltd. and the 1on1 Survey Insights
What is Maxell’s HOIKORO Co., Ltd.?
Maxell’s HOIKORO Co., Ltd., led by CEO Maeyama Masami and headquartered in Nishi-ku, Osaka City, is a pioneering startup focused on revolutionizing human capital management through its unique application, “TSUISEE.” This app positions itself as the only survey tool capable of truly addressing human capital challenges.
The Significance of HR DADA
In collaboration with consulting firm Consulente HYAKUNEN Co., Ltd., Maxell’s HOIKORO launched the online event “HR DADA.” The objective is clear: to analyze data surrounding workplaces and human resources policies while disseminating valuable insights derived from extensive fieldwork and research.
The Urgency for Organizational Change
Many professionals often feel a pressing need to enhance their organization’s environment or culture. Questions such as “What should we change?” arise frequently. The challenge lies in recognizing the specific areas requiring intervention rather than simply adopting the latest trends seen in human resource management.
Common HR Trends and Their Shortcomings
Organizations may rush to implement popular policies without adequate examination of their efficacy, resulting in a superficial understanding of true human capital needs.
As new trends emerge, the risk of following them blindly heightens, leading to a cycle where genuine engagement with people and organizational needs is overshadowed by transient policy implementations.
Introduction to the HR DADA Report: “1on1” Insights
The HR DADA report series highlights important themes from the field, starting with the much-debated topic of “1on1” meetings. Part 2 of the report aims to dissect feelings surrounding these meetings, including positive outcomes and prevalent skepticism about their effectiveness.
Survey feedback indicates mixed feelings about the cultural shift since implementing “1on1” meetings, with some acknowledging improvement while others remain unconvinced of their value.
Report Findings on “1on1” Meetings
Initial insights from earlier reports indicated that when a manager lacking proper skills engages in supportive “1on1” meetings, subordinates’ performance may indeed improve. Yet, this cannot be generalized as a universal solution to all organizational issues.
Understanding Psychological Safety
Psychological safety, a term popularized by Amy Edmondson of Harvard Business School, is foundational for innovative and productive teams. However, creating such an environment proves challenging. Many employees may feel unable to voice concerns, fearing negative repercussions.
Analyzing the Impact of “1on1” Meetings
What Types of “1on1” Are Needed?
For managers who struggle to foster psychological safety, “1on1” meetings can serve as a crucial instrument for supporting employees. The focus should be on task-oriented discussions that clarify roles and provide constructive feedback.
Survey Data Analysis
Analysis of survey responses, conducted with approximately 1,000 business professionals, reveals distinct outcomes based on managerial competency in creating psychological safety.
Behavior of Subordinates in Different Settings
In settings where managers successfully create psychological safety, subordinate engagement does not significantly vary based on “1on1” meetings. Conversely, when psychological safety is absent, “1on1” meetings can enhance the propensity of subordinates to engage creatively.
Effect of Managerial Pressure
Further investigation highlights that strong managerial pressure during “1on1” meetings often compels subordinates to seek assistance, even in less supportive environments.
Statistics on Change-Making Behavior
| Managerial Support Level | Change-Making Behavior Level | Subordinate Help-Seeking Behavior |
|---|---|---|
| High Psychological Safety | Consistent | Low Dependency |
| Low Psychological Safety | Increased Engagement | High Dependency |
Key Takeaways on “1on1” Effectiveness
The conducted research indicates that over-reliance on “1on1” meetings as a panacea for managerial shortcomings is misguided. While some positive behavioral changes in subordinates can be observed, it is crucial not to conflate these with sustained growth or creativity formed through a supportive workplace culture.
Future efforts will focus on clarifying the specific scenarios and types of “1on1” interactions that yield the most favorable outcomes for both managers and subordinates. It is imperative for organizations to critically assess and tailor their human resource strategies for genuine growth.
About Maxell’s HOIKORO Co., Ltd.
Maxell’s HOIKORO Co., Ltd. is dedicated to advancing human capital management through innovative tools like “TSUISEE.” With a commitment to data analysis and consulting, the company remains at the forefront of improving organizational performance in partnership with expert collaborators like Consulente HYAKUNEN Co., Ltd.
Contact Information:
Chief Development Officer
Takuto Shishido
Maxell’s HOIKORO Co., Ltd.
2-1-6 TOSABORI IVY 3rd floor, Tosabori, Nishi-ku, Osaka City, Osaka Prefecture
Visit our website
Download the Report
For more insights, download the full HR DADA report here.
Participation Info for Upcoming HR DADA Event
To attend the next “HR DADA” event, click here to apply.
