[IDO Concept] Part 5: Intent is not conveyed, translate it. -- Intent-Design [Introduction] that creates a common language called "End State" to trigger autonomy
"I thought I conveyed the intent" stops the organization.
What is needed is not an explanation, but a "visible landscape".
When the state of success is shared, the organization begins to self-synchronize.
"From Control to Intent"
-- Rebooting the organizational OS with "Intent".
(Painting source: Scuola di Atene (1510), Raffaello Santi, Public Domain)
[Disclaimer]
This article represents the author's personal views and does not indicate the official position of the organization to which they belong. Furthermore, the content is based on publicly available information and generalized/abstracted concepts.
In the previous article (Part 4: The Spell of Japanese-style Organizations -- Why does "waiting for instructions" occur?), I discussed the "mental antibodies" that break the spell hindering autonomy. So, what should a leader actually say to turn on the "autonomy switch" in the field?
In IDO implementation, the biggest wall is the leader's own psychological sunk cost (attachment) of "feeling anxious unless I give detailed instructions." The weapon to resolve this anxiety and correctly induce "independent judgment" in the field. That is the technique of verbalizing the "End State (desired final state/landscape of success)" which I will detail this time.
1. "Intent" is not a "Goal"
In management settings, "Goals" and "KPIs" are often discussed.
However, the "Intent" that a leader should show in IDO is distinct from those.
Goal: A "point" to be reached. (e.g., 100 million yen in sales, 10% market share)
End State (desired final state/landscape of success): The breadth of what the "state" of the surroundings will be upon arrival. (e.g., a state where customers cannot let go of our company's service as an infrastructure)
Intent: The "judgment criteria" that indicate the direction when the field makes decisions (e.g., priority is maximizing the initial speed of customer awareness of the new product)
In the uncertain environment of a battlefield, it is an everyday occurrence for the initially set "target point" to be blocked by enemy actions.
For example, suppose you, as a military commander, ordered your subordinates to carry out an operation to cross a river.
If the river-crossing point you initially showed your subordinates was blocked by enemy troops, would the subordinates stop and say, "There were enemies at the indicated crossing point, so we couldn't go," or would they be able to make an independent judgment: "The commander's intent is to 'quickly' send forces to the other side of the river. If so, let's immediately find another crossing point and cross to the other side."?
What creates this difference is the presence or absence of the commander's (leader's) "Intent".
2. Three elements that make up the End State
I define the "Intent" for the field to start moving autonomously as an "End State (desired final state/landscape of success)" composed of the following three elements.
① WHY: Why are we performing this mission? (Purpose and significance). For subordinates, this is the strategic context for work to change from an "order" to a "mission." We share a higher perspective of "how the market will change if this project succeeds" rather than "because it's an instruction from above."
② WHAT: What state should be achieved at the end of the operation for it to be a "victory"? This is the core. Instead of a still image like "100 million yen in sales," convey it with a video-like image, such as "a state where competitors have given up on following and field operations have begun to run autonomously." If the state (WHAT) is defined, the field can flexibly change the means (HOW).
③ CONDITION: The "constraints" and "priorities" that must be observed. It is the boundary line of "you can make independent judgments up to here, but consult me from here on." Because these guardrails exist, subordinates can step on the accelerator with peace of mind.
3. The process of "information subtraction" and "acceptance"
Please recall the "Information Paradox" (the phenomenon where having too much information actually dulls judgment) mentioned in Part 2 (The Information Paradox: Why teams become 'unable to make decisions'). The more detailed instructions a leader writes, the more the room for independent judgment on the front lines disappears.
What is important here is the "Acceptance Theory of Authority" proposed by Chester Barnard.
The effectiveness of an order is determined not by the boss issuing it, but by "the subordinate accepting it." Excellent leaders intentionally do not speak 100%.
They clearly convey 80% of the intent and leave the remaining 20% as a "blank space" for the front lines.
This margin is the "story of their own" that the front lines must fill with their own wisdom.
For a leader's intent to be "accepted" by the front lines, it is essential to have "integrity" (
integrity), where the content aligns with both the organization's interests and the individual's values.
4. Business Case Study: Turning abstract instructions into an "End State"
Let's give a concrete example.
This is a scene where a leader shows their intent during the launch of a new business.
Insufficient instructions (Befehl type): "Acquire 50 new customers within 3 months. Make 100 cold calls every day and enter the progress into the spreadsheet."
IDO-style End State presentation: "The intent is to have our company's service recognized as the industry standard (WHY). The End State after 3 months is 'a state where 10 major companies in the target segment have decided to adopt it, and word-of-mouth is occurring naturally' (WHAT). I don't care about the method, but please avoid aggressive sales tactics that could damage the brand (CONDITION)."If a subordinate who is told in the latter way judges that cold calling is not effective, they can immediately pivot to holding a webinar or similar on their own "independent judgment." This is because they can see the "landscape of success."
5. The leader's decision to support "independent judgment": Constancy of intent
Once an "End State (landscape of success)" has been shown, a leader must not change it unless there is a major strategic shift. What the front lines fear most while acting on their own judgment is that "the boss will change their mind."
A leader's job is to believe in the "landscape of success" they once drew and to protect the team from surrounding noise while they are running toward it.
This "constancy of intent" (constancy of intent) is what makes bold independent judgment possible.
6. The ultimate contract concluded by "Two I DOs"
Finally, let's contrast the true nature of the "old OS" we choose unconsciously with the true form that IDO aims for.
Old OS: A chain of "I CHECK" and "THEY WAIT"
IDO: A resonance of "I DO (I take responsibility)" and "I DO (I make the decision)"
The more a boss seeks the peace of mind called "checking," the more the front lines fall into the paralysis of thought called "waiting."
In contrast, allowing "independent judgment" on the front lines is not "neglect" by the leader.
It means the leader takes full responsibility for the results of the decisions made by the front lines.
The leader's "I DO (I take responsibility)" and the front line's "I DO (I make the decision)."
When these two "I DOs" overlap, the orchestra called "IDO: Intent-Driven Organization" begins to play a melody more powerful than ever before.
"IDO: Intent-Driven Organization" is another name for a contract that binds each other's 'I DO' with trust.
Part 6
"IDO in OODA
-- Intent synchronizes Orient 'Cognitive Synchronization OS' "
and see you in Intent-Design Part 5-1 "
Why your intent does not work
."
*"IDO" and "Intent-Driven Orchestration" are unique organizational management concepts proposed by Naotomo Yamazoe.
