The Real Decision Facing Managers, Prompted by “Diagnosis” Services
A free advisory service has launched to “diagnose” whether obtaining the “Health and Productivity Management” certification is necessary for a company. This news suggests something more than just a service announcement. It highlights a common reality: when many small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) managers face the decision to “introduce a system or certification,” they tend to think in binary terms of “do it or don’t.” However, this very binary choice is the first step toward losing reversibility and becoming locked into an irreversible “fixation.”
Not limited to health and productivity management, various “recommended” systems, tools, and management methodologies are prone to having implementation become the goal itself. The moment they are introduced, “continuation” becomes the default assumption without setting evaluation periods or observation points, creating a psychological cost where stopping is seen as “regression.” This new “diagnosis” service is interesting because it provides an opportunity to ask “is this really necessary?” before taking that step. But what is required of managers is not to blindly accept an external diagnosis, but the judgment to incorporate that “diagnosis” into their own company’s reversible experimental process.
System Implementation is Not “All or Nothing”
The certification criteria for “Health and Productivity Management” are extensive. They can cover dozens of items, such as improving employee health checkup rates, conducting stress checks and follow-up interviews, establishing leave systems, and improving office environments. A common pitfall in judgment here is the “all or nothing” mindset: “If we’re going for certification, we must meet all the criteria.”
This is a classic pattern of losing reversibility in system implementation. Introducing everything at once creates a significant burden (cost, man-hours, operational disruption), and it becomes difficult, both psychologically and practically, to “partially stop” something once started. As a result, systems that don’t match the company’s reality become fixed and hollowed out under the guise of “maintaining certification.”
From the perspective of “Reversible Management,” this decision should be broken down. Against the essential goal of “reducing employee health risks and increasing productivity,” which of the dozens of items would be most effective and allow for a “temporary trial”? Which ones can be tested on a small scale with a set evaluation period? Selecting these is the first step to preventing fixation.
Observation Point: Look for “Signs of Effect,” Not Just “Form”
For example, there is an item like “100% implementation rate of follow-up interviews after stress checks.” It’s easy to set this as a target and establish an implementation framework. However, this only tells you that the “form is in place.” If approached as a reversible experiment, the observation points should be different.
“How do the number and attributes (department, position, etc.) of employees requesting follow-up interviews change?”
“Were there any perceived changes in work (subtle communication adjustments, awareness of workload issues) by the individual or their supervisor after the interview?”
“What is the balance between the man-hours managers invested in this process and the insights gained?”
Observe these “signs of effect” quarterly, for instance. If clear signs are absent and only managerial burden is high, you can then decide to change the “form” of the process or boldly terminate it. The key here is to calmly redefine termination not as “a regression in health and productivity management,” but as “ending an ineffective method.” The goal is not certification acquisition, but improving employee health and productivity.
How to Convert “Diagnosis Results” into a Reversible Experiment Plan
If you use an external diagnostic service, you should receive the results not as a “yes or no” answer, but as a “candidate list for experiments.” If the diagnosis points out “your company is lacking in this area,” design reversibility using the following three steps.
Step 1: Decomposition and Prioritization
Break down the pointed-out item into smaller, actionable units. For “establishing a leave system,” this could mean separating it into “visualizing paid leave acquisition rates,” “encouraging planned paid leave usage,” and “identifying work structures that hinder leave taking.” Start with the one that has the lowest implementation barrier and where signs of effect are easiest to observe.
Step 2: Pre-setting Evaluation Periods and Exit Conditions
Decide in advance on the period and criteria for continuation/change. For example: “We will review a dashboard visualizing paid leave acquisition rates monthly in management meetings for 3 months. If, in addition to changes in acquisition rates, there are at least three specific comments from managers like ‘visualization sparked conversations,’ we continue. Otherwise, we reconsider the visualization method or frequency.” This prevents decisions based on emotion or a sense of “waste.”
Step 3: An Observation System That Doesn’t Default to “A People Problem”
When systems become hollow, management often attributes the cause to “a people problem”—”managers don’t utilize it” or “employees don’t understand.” However, that is a sign of complete loss of reversibility. “Reversible Management” does not first question people’s motivation or ability. Instead, it questions the work structure.
“Is 10 minutes per week reliably secured for managers to look at the dashboard?”
“Is a minimal framework provided for what to discuss based on that data? (e.g., ‘Person A, your taken days are still low this quarter, is there anything we can help with?’)”
Removing such structural hurdles in work design is key to maintaining a system as a “living experiment.”
Application Beyond Health Management: To All “Good Systems”
This framework is not limited to health and productivity management. It applies to the principles behind obtaining ISO certification, introducing agile development, new evaluation systems, and even major transformations like the organizational restructuring at DHL or Samsung mentioned in the news.
Large-scale restructuring in major corporations is extremely difficult to reverse once decided. However, if the decision-making process incorporates the design of reversibility—”How, by whom, and with which indicators will we evaluate the effect of this investment decision in six months?” or “If the expected synergies don’t materialize, at what unit will we withdraw or scale back?”—the damage from failure can be mitigated.
The advantage for SME managers lies in the speed and flexibility to “test reversibly.” We can decompose, trial on a small scale, observe, and if necessary, retreat from the kinds of transformations that large corporations undertake with massive budgets on an “all or nothing” basis.
What Makes Decisions Irreversible is the “Decision Not to Evaluate”
When introducing a system or change, the most dangerous thing is to keep running with the vague assumption, “Let’s just start and see. It’s probably getting better,” without clear evaluation. This is equivalent to making the “decision not to evaluate,” and it destroys reversibility. Because then, whether things are good or bad, you cannot take the next data-driven step.
The “diagnosis” service for health and productivity management helps with the pre-implementation decision. However, a manager’s true worth is tested after implementation. At the set evaluation period, can they face the observation results without fear and have the courage to say, “This part worked. This part didn’t fit our company. So, we stop here,” and turn back?
“Reversible Management” is not about choosing excellent systems, but about being able to unashamedly and cleanly terminate the parts that don’t fit your company.
Comments