There is no growth for companies whose HR function is both person-dependent and devoid of strategic substance.

 

Read the original article (in Japanese):

なんだかんだ「ゴマすり上手」の昇進が早い日本企業の未来は悲惨…元スタバのCEOが実践してきた社員のやる気を損なわない公正な人事とは | 集英社オンライン | ニュースを本気で噛み砕け

Introduction | Why Are “Yes-Men” Always at the Top?

Every company has its “yes-men managers.” In front of senior executives, they are deferential, polite, and quick to respond. Yet in front of colleagues and subordinates, their attitude suddenly changes. They look down on others. They issue orders. They shift responsibility. The atmosphere turns toxic.

And yet, for some reason, they are evaluated highly. For some reason, they keep getting promoted.

Let’s be blunt. Feeling good when you are praised is, biologically and from an evolutionary psychology perspective, almost a built-in feature.
In Japan in particular—given its village-based social structures, island geography, and rice-farming cultural roots—this tendency is even stronger from a cultural anthropology standpoint. In Japanese companies, flattery is an error that is especially likely to occur.

However, the fact that it is likely to occur does not mean it should be tolerated.

The real problem is that organizational evaluation structures allow it.

Systems where winning only requires showing a “good face” to one’s boss.
Systems where evaluations from below do not rise upward.
Systems where friction with others is never made visible.

In such organizations, flattery becomes a strategy.
This is not merely an individual problem. It is a problem of the HR system.

---

Chapter 1 | The Evaluation Structure That Makes Flattery Rational

Workplaces where flattery spreads almost always share a common trait:
HR evaluations are effectively exclusive to the direct supervisor. The supervisor’s subjectivity dominates, information sources are skewed, and counterevidence rarely enters the process.

When these conditions are in place, the subordinate’s optimal strategy is reduced to two simple choices:

• Build results over time (slow and uncertain)

• Secure the supervisor’s positive impression (immediate and highly repeatable)

From a rational standpoint, the latter wins. Impression management can be executed regardless of actual ability. In other words, anyone can board the winning track. All one has to do is “land the boss.”

“Corporate survival skills” that make superiors feel good are extremely powerful in the short term. Quick affirmations in meetings. Anticipating and supplementing the boss’s remarks. Praising them at social gatherings. Avoiding criticism and following their lead. These behaviors look like productive work and protect the supervisor’s self-image. From an individual perspective, they are rational.

This is not a uniquely Japanese moral issue. It is a design failure.

As long as evaluation is one-directional, impressions override results. The party responsible for making this strategy rational is not employees—it is the system designers.

---

Chapter 2 | Flattery and Harassment Share the Same Structure

Flattery is often understood as behavior directed upward. But when viewed at the organizational level, its essence is the opposite.

Those who flatter upward force others to flatter downward.

The treatment they once received is reenacted the moment they gain authority.
They silence dissent. They demand conformity. They exclude those who resist.

This structure overlaps perfectly with harassment. Submission upward, pressure downward—a dual hierarchy. Unreasonableness becomes justified as a “rite of passage” and is reproduced.

Crucially, this is not a problem of bad people. Those who endure rise, and those who rise repeat what they endured. Over decades of such appointments, the culture slowly permeates the entire organization.

---

Chapter 3 | The Reproduction of Flattery Is Driven by Success

The reproduction of flattery is reinforced by success itself.

Those promoted through flattery unconsciously reach a conclusion: “This approach was correct.” They affirm their own trajectory.

As a result, subordinates who behave the same way appear “smart” and “capable.” Meanwhile, sincere employees who do not flatter are seen as “difficult.” Because they do not follow the “right” path, they are judged as less competent.

This phenomenon can be explained through the following psychological mechanisms:

Psychological Mechanisms

Mechanism	Why It Applies	Typical Workplace Example
Social Learning (Modeling)	Behaviors that led to promotion through flattery are learned as the “correct model,” and subordinates who replicate them are evaluated positively.	Flattery-oriented subordinates are promoted as being “highly loyal.”
Projection	One’s own ingratiating behavior and ambition are projected onto others, leading similar types to be perceived as “competent.”	Compliant employees are rated more highly than sincere but non-flattering ones.
Cognitive Distortion	The belief that “ingratiation is the correct strategy” becomes fixed, while contradictory evidence is dismissed.	Positive impressions override actual performance or capability.
Environmental Factors	Ingratiation becomes normalized as a promotion tactic within organizational culture, causing similar personnel to circulate upward.	Senior leadership becomes dominated by the same flattery-oriented type.

These psychological concepts are merely explanatory tools. They demonstrate that such errors are structurally inevitable. From an organizational theory standpoint, the essential question is not why this happens, but why no mechanism exists to stop it.

---

Chapter 4 | Do Not Rely on the Conscience of Individual Managers

The source article includes a symbolic statement:
“I realized that when evaluating subordinates, I also need to listen to the opinions of their subordinates.”

While this is often treated as a heartwarming anecdote, it must be said plainly:

Do not make individual managers come to this realization on their own.

This is the job of HR system design. Such processes should be embedded from the start. Instead of gathering information only after issues arise, HR should already be aggregating data on personalities and behavior. The sides of people their bosses never see. The friction colleagues experience. The pressure felt by subordinates. Systems should be built so that this information naturally accumulates.

Reaching 100% coverage may be impossible, but HR must make a serious effort to get as close as possible.

This is not about suspicion or fault-finding. It is about removing destructive factors before authority is granted. More than anything, the existence of such systems itself deters flattery and harassment. This is insurance for management and the foundation of growth strategy.

---

Chapter 5 | HR’s Job Is Not “Management,” but “Design”

Many Japanese companies still cling to outdated views of HR. Hiring enough people. Managing headcount. Handling labor issues. These are merely the minimum requirements—the peripheral tasks.

HR departments that stop there are inevitably seen as administrative units, because they hold no information that informs management decisions. Their voice in the organization weakens accordingly.

True HR must:

• Understand management’s vision

• Define necessary roles

• Allocate people based on individual strengths

• Remove sources of friction in advance

In other words, the essence of HR is translating management’s vision into organizational structure. This requires information, design, and judgment.

When HR becomes an information hub, one-directional evaluation collapses. When it does not, HR remains a department that merely “keeps things running.” It fails to engage with management, is undervalued, and therefore reduced even further—a vicious cycle for the organization.

---

Chapter 6 | Increase Evaluation Perspectives, and Flattery Disappears Naturally

There is no need to loudly denounce flattery. That is the role of executives, not HR. HR must compete through systems. Increase evaluation perspectives, and flattery naturally loses its power.

Essential Evaluation and Appointment Mechanisms

■ 360-Degree Evaluation
Assess consistency in behavior, relationships, and use of authority. Avoid popularity contests; focus on concrete actions such as accountability, conduct during conflicts, and responsibility in failure.

■ Questions on the Sound Use of Authority
Measure not satisfaction, but whether favoritism occurred, standards were consistent, and pressure was misused.

■ Cross-Functional Reviews
Examine friction, information sharing, and reproducibility across departments to expose individuals optimized only for upward approval.

■ Pre-Appointment Internal References
Confirm difficulties, concerns about authority delegation, and clear weaknesses. This is about role fit, not distrust.

■ Explicit Justification of Appointments
If the reason for promotion cannot be articulated, it is merely impression-based.

These processes require effort. That is precisely why HR must not take the easy path.

---

Chapter 7 | Why Companies That “Take It Easy” in HR Inevitably Decline

Taking the easy way in HR does not mean laziness alone. It means oversimplifying and refusing to see problems.

Relying only on supervisor evaluations. Ignoring friction. Failing to articulate decisions.

Such “simple HR” may work in the short term and even be praised as decisive. Many companies fall into the illusion that speed is their strength.

What follows, however, is gradual degradation. First, competent people leave—especially those who refuse to play flattery games. Those truly committed to their work do not over-invest in pleasing their superiors.

Next, problems stop surfacing. Reports that disturb harmony or assign responsibility are avoided. Conflict avoidance intensifies, and issues grow unseen until they become unmanageable.

Finally, decision-making deteriorates. Leadership becomes homogeneous, counterarguments vanish, and strategy is governed by atmosphere rather than logic. Since capability-based selection has already been eliminated, poor judgment is inevitable.

The organization decays over years. There is no way to halt this quiet collapse, because capability, judgment, and strategy have already been expelled from decision-making.

---

Conclusion | Excluding Flatterers Is Not “Harshness”

This is not just about flattery. Harassment and abuse of authority arise from the same structure.

Eliminating problematic individuals is not about individual effort or moral virtue. It is something that should naturally occur through HR systems.

Failing to do so does not make a company kind to employees. It merely trivializes HR and takes the easy route—while continuously eroding organizational value.

As long as HR is treated as a mere administrative unit, flattery will structurally win. Granting HR the authority and responsibility to eliminate problematic personnel in line with management’s vision is essential.

A company that can only practice person-dependent, flavorless HR will never grow.

Read in Japanese ↓（For Japanese learners!）↓

Read more articles (in Japanese)↓