The Essence of “Returnable Management” Questioned by Withdrawal Decisions
For business leaders, “withdrawal” is one of the toughest decisions. Especially when letting go of a business or position built up over time, psychological resistance is strong, and decisions tend to be postponed.
However, a recent article in the Okinawa Times titled “81 Years After the War: Questions on the Rationality of Military Withdrawal” sharply probes the essence of withdrawal decisions. According to a report by Lieutenant Colonel Shinfuku of the 32nd Army, there were no defensive positions prepared in the southern region, and the perspective of protecting the people was missing.
What we can learn from this article is that “rationality” and the perspective of “who are we protecting?” are essential in withdrawal decisions. Moreover, viewing withdrawal not as a “defeat” but as a “choice for the next step” is critically important in business as well.
Questioning the Rationality of Withdrawal Decisions
Lieutenant Colonel Shinfuku’s analysis points out that the military’s withdrawal strategy lacked “rationality.” Specifically, no defensive line was planned after the withdrawal, resulting in many casualties.
Let’s translate this to business. When your company considers withdrawing from an unprofitable business, is that decision truly rational? A common trap is the sunk cost fallacy: “We’ve already invested so much.” Or emotional arguments like, “Withdrawing will lower employee morale.”
But what you should really ask is a future-oriented rationality: “After withdrawing, what will we protect, and where will we concentrate our management resources?” Withdrawal is not an end, but a stepping stone for a new beginning.
Three Criteria for Drawing a “Line of Return”
To ensure reversibility in business decisions, you need to clearly draw a “line of return” at the point of withdrawal. Specifically, consider these three points:
1. Decide on the evaluation period and conditions for withdrawal in advance
If you decide, “We will withdraw if we don’t reach the sales target within six months,” you can make a decision without being swayed by emotions. Starting a business without setting these conditions is like charging toward a cliff with no way back.
2. Decide where to allocate resources after withdrawal
Where will you redirect the personnel and funds freed up by the withdrawal? By envisioning a specific “second formation,” you can eliminate hesitation in the withdrawal decision.
3. Maintain relationships with customers and partners in a “returnable” form
Even when closing a business, preserve customer data and relationships with business partners. By leaving the possibility of re-entering the market in the future, withdrawal becomes a “strategic retreat” rather than a “defeat.”
The Danger of Decisions Lacking the “Perspective of Protecting the People”
The most shocking point in the analysis of the Battle of Okinawa is the observation that “the perspective of protecting the people was missing.” The military’s withdrawal decisions did not consider the safety of the people they were supposed to protect.
In business, the “people” are your customers, employees, and business partners. If the perspective of protecting these stakeholders is missing from withdrawal decisions, you may succeed in short-term cost reduction but lose long-term trust.
For example, cases where a sudden business withdrawal inconveniences customers or employees are laid off without adequate explanation. These leave “irreparable scars.” On the other hand, creating a phased withdrawal plan, introducing alternative services to customers, and providing outplacement support for employees—even if you close the business, such actions leave behind the trust that “that company was sincere.”
“People-First” Decisions That Ensure Reversibility
To ensure reversibility in withdrawal decisions, the perspective of protecting stakeholders is essential. Specifically, ask yourself these questions:
“Does this withdrawal decision benefit the customer?”
“Is this decision made with the employees’ future in mind?”
“Are we not imposing disadvantages on our business partners?”
A withdrawal you cannot answer “yes” to these questions, even if successful in the short term, becomes an “irreversible decision” that damages the company’s credibility in the long run.
Thinking of Withdrawal as an “Experiment”
The essence of “returnable management” is to view withdrawal not as a “failure” but as an “experiment.” If it’s an experiment, even if the results differ from expectations, you can positively view it as “we got data.”
A manufacturing client I consulted with set “withdrawal conditions” from the start when entering a new business. The condition was: “Withdraw if monthly sales don’t reach ¥1 million (approx. $7,000) within one year.” They ultimately couldn’t meet the condition and withdrew, but the decision was extremely smooth. Because a “line of return” had been drawn from the beginning.
After the withdrawal, this company redirected freed-up resources to strengthen its core business, and overall profitability improved. It’s a great example of withdrawal becoming a “stepping stone for the next move” rather than a “defeat.”
Three Elements That Make Withdrawal Decisions Irreversible
Finally, let’s confirm three pitfalls that make withdrawal decisions irreversible.
1. Fixing roles and expectations on specific people
If you fixate that “only this person can lead this business,” the withdrawal decision becomes directly tied to that person’s evaluation and career, delaying the decision.
2. Making responsibilities ambiguous through contracts or systems
Even if you decide that “the board will decide on withdrawal,” if who bears ultimate responsibility is unclear, no one will make the decision.
3. Proceeding without understanding the actual situation
Continuing a business based on a vague feeling that “it seems profitable” without scrutinizing the numbers. This is the most dangerous.
Summary: Withdrawal is One “Returnable Choice”
The lesson from the Battle of Okinawa is that when withdrawal decisions lack rationality and the perspective of “who to protect,” they lead to irreversible consequences.
The same applies to business. Withdrawal is not a “defeat” but a “strategic choice to protect what must be protected.” To design that decision in a “returnable” form, it is essential to set evaluation periods and withdrawal conditions in advance, maintain the perspective of protecting stakeholders, and view withdrawal as an “experiment.”
Is a true “line of return” drawn in your company’s withdrawal decisions? Why not take this opportunity to review your own decision-making criteria?
Comments