Method
Method
8 pagesNo guessing: how I read markets, people and organizations
Contents5
Most companies entering Japan start by hiring someone. I think that's usually the wrong first move.
It usually sounds like this: "Let's hire a country manager first." Or two sales people to test the market, or an HR person who knows Japan to set things up.
I understand the instinct. The trouble is what nobody knows yet at that point. Who you'll fight for customers in Japan. Who you'll fight for people. What you'll actually sell in year one. The person arrives before the direction does. A year later the person and the job don't fit, and you replace them.
That replacement is expensive. Finding a new head for a Japan entity usually takes six to twelve months, and the search fee is well above an ordinary hire's. For that whole stretch the Japan business is standing still.
I remember one foreign company whose first worry was procedures, registration and visas. Once things got moving, the real blocker turned out to be the first employee. What kind of person, what to pay, how to interview, how to get them interested, how to talk to them once they joined. None of that is a procedure question. All of it was waiting on an earlier answer: in this market, who are you being compared with?
Most of my work comes down to keeping that step from being a guess.
What comes first, and why?
Run the order backwards and every later step is a guess
Basis: the decisions a company makes when it enters a market, in the order I make them
- 01MapsWho competes with you for customers, and for people.
- 02ProductWhat you sell in Japan, and what Japan will ask you to change.
- 03SalesWhich tier of customer, through which channel.
- 04OrganizationWho sells, and what Japan may decide on its own.
- 05SystemsGrades, allowances and bonus, set once the rest is known.
Each step uses the answer from the one before it, so grades and pay come last.
Market map, talent map, then product, sales and organization. Grades and pay come last. The organization exists to serve sales, and sales exists to serve the product. Run it in the other direction and the pieces don't connect.
Plenty of companies do run it the other way. Build the team, then work out what it sells. I see why. Hiring is visible, it looks like momentum, and HQ likes a headcount update. But if the earlier steps are undecided, a well-built team on top is still a guess. The bill usually arrives in year two.
The seven parts, one page each
Each part has its own page, written so you can pick it up and use it. Here is what each one is for.
| Page | What it answers | What you get | How finished |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ground rules | Where facts come from, how they become conclusions | Rules every other page follows | Applies to every page |
| The two maps | Who competes with you, and where the people are | Company list with reasons, requirement list with a relax order | Run and delivered |
| Four layers | What kind of person, what kind of organization | A four-layer portrait, an organization diagnosis | Reading people in use, not calibrated; organization diagnosis structure set, no full cycle yet |
| Fit check | Does this person fit this role | One of five verdicts, a 90-day checklist | Structure set, no full cycle yet |
| Three-track pay | What to pay, and which part moves when | Grade, role allowance, bonus rules | Structure set, no full cycle yet |
| Product, sales, organization | What to sell, to whom, and who decides in Japan | A sales tier, a channel, an authority split | Still taking shape |
| From zero | The whole order with nothing in place | Hiring order, role split, year-one milestones | Each piece used, not yet run as one path |
The seven pages are not separate. What one page hands over is what the next one starts from.
Each step uses only what the step before handed over, and results check the judgment
Basis: the hand-offs between the method pages. Tap any box to open its page.
No line here is drawn from impression. The 90-day results rewrite the earlier judgments.
The terms are defined in the glossary.
Different questions, different entry points
I don't run the whole thing from scratch every time. Where you start depends on what you're asking.
| Your question | Start at | Then |
|---|---|---|
| What's wrong with our organization? | The organization diagnosis in four layers | Four layers on the people in key seats, then the fit check |
| Who should sit in this seat? | The two maps | Four layers, fit check, then grade and pay |
| Where do we go next? | The two maps | Product, sales, organization, systems |
| We're starting from zero in Japan | From zero | The same order, starting from who to hire first |
One rule overrides the table. If the diagnosis finds the problem at the very top, say nobody has settled who decides, I stop there and put that on the table first. A redesign plan before that point is wasted.
Six beliefs that feel right and cost money
Each of these sounds like common sense. Here is why I don't work that way.
The most capable candidate is the best fit
Skills can be trained. Drive and values barely change. A candidate with top skills and drive that doesn't match the role looks great on an average, and sooner or later leaves. That's why I check vetoes before scoring and let the weakest layer set the verdict. The rules are on the fit check page.
A complete competitor list is a better one
A company goes on the list only if it competes with you for people, for customers, or controls whether you can enter at all. A famous name that does none of these stays off. A map that tries to cover everyone looks thorough and decides nothing. See the two maps.
A reasonable inference can fill a gap
I don't fill gaps. If I can't find it, I write "not disclosed." An inferred cell looks exactly like a checked one in a comparison table, and that's why it's the hardest error to catch later. More in the ground rules.
Language, degree and years of experience are non-negotiable
They're the most visible requirements and the easiest to check. That's why they get defended. They are usually the first ones to relax. What you protect is the trait that takes longest to build, or can't be built after someone joins.
People who manage others deserve a higher grade
Managing people is one responsibility a role can carry. It gets paid as an allowance on the role. A specialist and a manager can sit at the same grade. When a manager steps down, the allowance goes and the base pay stays. See three-track pay.
The bonus should reward attitude and effort
Behavior is evidence for the grade. The bonus answers one question: what got done this period? Pay for the same thing twice and both tracks lose meaning.
How finished is each part?
Some of it is proven on real work. Some of it isn't yet, and I'd rather say so.
- Market map and talent map: run end to end on real work, with results delivered.
- Reading people in four layers: in use, but there aren't enough look-backs after people joined to calibrate it.
- Organization diagnosis, the five-level fit check, three-track pay: the structure is set, but none has been through a full real cycle.
- Product and sales strategy: still taking shape. They now share one page, which will change as I go.
- Building from zero: I have used every piece, but have not yet run them as one path from start to finish.
Each time I run it, what I fix is the method. These pages change with it.
If a step doesn't hold up for you, or your experience says otherwise, tell me.