I received a copy of “Reflective Manager: Top Performers Always Reflect” written by Prof. Nakahara of the University of Tokyo and Prof. Kanai of Kobe University. Thank you very much, Prof. Nakahara.

While I believe the content is aimed at those involved in corporate education in some capacity, I think it is a good read not only for those in corporate training but also for those in academic posts and even students. I would especially like those in academic positions who are in management roles, as well as professors and associate professors in similar positions, to read it.

The introduction begins with the topic of “manager rejection.” It discusses how the things a manager needs to do have increased compared to several decades ago—from taking care of subordinates’ mental health to everything else. Seeing this, new employees say, “I don’t want to become a manager.” I sympathize with that. With what? Well, with those new employees. I feel the same way. I have absolutely no interest in becoming a manager myself. Prof. Akahori once told me, “A regular professor who can also do research is the best position to be in.”

The main theme is that “people learn through interaction with those around them (superiors, colleagues, subordinates, business partners, etc.),” and the importance of reflection (reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action) during the learning process is explained based on the research results and experiences of Prof. Kanai and Prof. Nakahara. However, adult learning, especially effective learning triggered by reflection, is often painful. This is because reflection requires one to acknowledge that even the experiences and personal theories one has built up until now “might not be applicable.” This was explained using terms like “learning rejection,” “unlearning,” and “unlearn.” Reflection requires unlearning, experiencing new things, and going through the process of constructing new personal theories. There is a risk that these theories and experiences can degenerate into “old men’s preaching” or “trite maxims,” and the book explains the necessity of understanding why “unlearning” is required.

Chapter 3 explains learning through dialogue as a mechanism for triggering learning, particularly focusing on learning communities in organizations and their significance and effects. It specifically explains legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991) by citing the example of tailors in Africa. This is a famous story where newcomers start by experiencing the final step of the clothing production process (sewing on buttons) and gradually become involved in more important parts of the work (parts where mistakes are not allowed), which allows them to grasp the entire clothing production process. Since reflection is a keyword in this book, it discusses how managers can get involved in learning and create mechanisms to encourage reflection.

Towards the end of Chapter 3, Prof. Nakahara explains “the penetration of philosophy.” Organizations have missions and philosophies. Managers want to instill these. To do so, they conduct new employee training, publish internal newsletters, and enforce them through corporate training. Prof. Nakahara argues that while it cannot be said that these have no learning effect, they follow the conduit metaphor and are merely pouring information into the receiver. What I found convincing from my own experience is the quote by Takashi Takatsu that Prof. Nakahara cites:

“Companies say they want to instill their philosophy in every employee, but no employee actually wants the philosophy instilled in them.”

That is exactly how I feel. When I was in a company, even if a department manager or president said, “Our philosophy is X, so please work hard according to it,” or if the HR department gave some incomprehensible explanation, employees would never agree with that. I don’t even remember it; I probably didn’t listen to it thinking it was anything important. A philosophy forced by a superior and spoken under duress has only that much value. Such things cannot change a person’s way of thinking, let alone their behavior. The book also touches on how to think about this penetration of philosophy.

Chapter 4, “How Companies Support Individual Learning,” discusses the harmful effects of “my educational theory” and why “vague training” is conducted. Chapter 5, titled “Human Resource Development ‘Outside’ the Company,” explains mechanisms for dialogue and reflection outside the company, using the Learning Bar hosted by Prof. Nakahara as an example. Please read this part. I have participated in a Learning Bar, and I was surprised by how many corporate employees were there (it seems there are so many applicants that it’s a lottery), and I heard interesting stories and engaged in “dialogue.” I wrote about it on my blog and outputted my thoughts. It really sticks in your mind.

I think the discussion in this book applies to university organizations as well. Universities also have different missions depending on the organization, and we must grasp how to contribute to the philosophy that the university holds. But do the faculty members at the grassroots level think that far? I don’t think they do. Currently, as part of Faculty Development (FD), various measures are being considered and implemented at each university to improve faculty quality. However, at present, these are “conduit”-style learning, and I wonder how many places have managed to escape the “conduit.”

In advancing my research on FD, this book gave me many hints, and it was also a reference for how I, as an individual, should build my career as a researcher in the future.

The words of Prof. Nakahara in Chapter 4 are very moving.

———–
You say, learn, adults.
You say, grow, adults.
You say, transform, adults.

So, what about you, the one who says these things?
Are you yourself learning?
Are you yourself trying to grow?
Are you yourself trying to change?
———–

I previously wrote an entry titled “Why do you run away from English?” It seemed to be quite a provocative piece, and there were various reactions on Twitter. The content was aimed at master’s students, but it was also aimed at me. For now, I am reading English literature. But when I stop doing that, I have abandoned one form of learning. Not running away from English and continuing it. This serves as an opportunity to ask myself the question: Am I learning? Am I trying to grow?

Although this book targets corporate human resources, it is written in a way that is easy to understand even for those who do not know the theories mentioned in the learning sciences, and I think researchers who do not have education as their research field should also read it once. It is also good for students looking for employment. It is interesting that the story unfolds in the form of a dialogue between Prof. Kanai and Prof. Nakahara. Because of that, it is easy to understand how the topics are connected. It was an interesting book. I learned a lot.

I also have a few questions. Regarding the initial topic of “manager rejection,” it can be interpreted from the text that becoming a manager is a good thing. I might be misunderstanding, but it could also be interpreted as saying that manager experience = higher-level experience = an experience that helps one grow. Is that a correct interpretation?

# I think my generation is also a generation that places value on mastering a specialty. It may depend on the industry, though.
# To put it another way, I think it’s about “wanting to do what I want to do.”
# I think our generation recognizes that “training is necessary to do what you want to do.”
# In a WBS job hunting special, there was a student who said, “I will choose a company that lets me do what I want to do.”
# I listened to it thinking, “Maybe they’ll let you do it someday (laughs), but there’s a high possibility they won’t.”
#

Also, I don’t really understand the goal of research related to corporate human resource development, especially research from an organizational perspective. Is it okay to say it’s about improving the affective aspects of human resources? In this book, there was a story about HR department staff being asked to do “training for the time being,” and I wonder if it’s possible that HR staff are asked for incomprehensible requests because the emphasis is placed on this improvement of affective aspects. That said, I understand that it is difficult to objectively define what constitutes success. I also think it’s hard for HR people to talk about training goals in numerical terms. It’s not simply a matter of acquiring some skill.

Furthermore, even if you try to perform numerical evaluations, when it comes to corporate human resource development, you cannot afford to fail. I think there are places that cannot publish anything if some bad numbers come out. I think this is one of the reasons that makes research on corporate human resource development difficult. Since the number of studies from an educational perspective is still small, perhaps some good criteria for measurement will emerge in the future.

And so on, I have a few more questions, but I would like to bring them up next time if I have an opportunity to talk to Prof. Nakahara directly.