Nemawashi and the Meta of Meetings
A few weeks ago I walked into a meeting room to discuss my solution to a fork in the road problem. We’ve been roadblocked for two weeks with two clear paths forward. One of them I preferred; a bit more work, but it would bring dividends in the future and not burden us with a less than ideal solution. The other way forward was what a different group wanted: to push the project through so they could reach the deadline.
I came armed with slides, data, and what I thought was a solid argument, only to realize halfway through that the decision had already been made. The executives weren’t just leaning toward the other solution; they were quoting that team’s talking points word for word.
Everyone’s mind was already made up, just not in my favour. They’d clearly done the groundwork and convinced every one of their approach long before I entered the room.
It took me a while to realize what had happened.
What happened is called Nemawashi. A Japanese term literally meaning “turning the roots”, referring to preparing the soil before transplanting a tree.
Not something that is unique to Japanese culture.
The myth of the meeting room.
Nemawashi can be seen as backroom politics, but that shouldn’t be the case. The idea is that you check in before a big decision with all the stakeholders and go over all the points one on one. Making sure everyone fully understands what needs to be discussed and where everyone stands.
Afterwards, when the real meetings start, everyone is fully informed, had time to think it over and there are no surprises. That way there are no open disagreements and losing of face, everything is discussed in private.
The big meeting room gathering is more of a ceremony to adopt the solution.
This seems like a big time waster, but you have to think to yourself how many meetings you’ve been part of that resulted in a big emotional discussion that goes nowhere. It’s not easy to have the data ready to defend yourself to a discussion that ambushed you. And while people are arguing and trying to find the data, the rest of the meeting is just waiting for the follow-up meeting to further discuss the way forward.
Of course, this can look like office politics if done badly: if it’s about exclusion instead of inclusion. But that’s not Nemawashi.
The point isn’t to stack the deck, it’s to make sure everyone had a chance to play. Just look at the intro of the post. One person (or group) was left out of the discussion, and it’s an unfair fight.
But that’s also because the other side didn’t partake in the practice.
To me, we sometimes see meetings as a race for quick wit and eloquence. You go to a meeting room, and you all get the same information to a problem at the same time and it’s Ready, set, go!
The first person to quickly and convincingly suggests a solution wins. It is not often you see people react with “hmm, I really need to think this over and look at some data”. That obviously happens, but in my opinion way too seldom.
This is how you get quick fixes that take the road of least resistance. If you have no data and time to think you will go for shallow solutions.
Nemawashi means celebrating the roots, not the fruit.
Another side effect of Nemawashi is that the big grudges fall away.
Humans don’t think well in public. We anchor to the first opinion we hear, we defend our status, and we rarely admit uncertainty in front of peers. Nemawashi respects that, it lets people think in private before they decide in public.
Open disagreements, especially when people are watching, can feel very confrontational. Walking into a meeting room and seeing the same people that you had a big emotional discussion with a few days ago will colour the mood of the meeting instantly.
The opposite is also true. It might not be the best idea to publicly disagree with your lead in every public setting. These are things that are best done before big meetings and signal a unified department to the rest of the organization.
Having a one-on-one with someone you don’t like, that has very opposing views, is probably also best done before the meeting. You will notice that a more informal setting will make these conversations more palatable. Especially compared to these kinds of meetings where the CIO or COO is also in the same room.
In the end, it’s also not about winning or losing. It’s about getting workable solutions out of the door. These often happen when everyone is heard and had time to check the data.
Less talking, more thinking
Ultimately this isn’t about some corporate secret cheat code to fix your meetings. It’s more a mindset switch.
The highest value decisions are not made in a sudden public performance, but made in quiet, deliberate preparation.
Removing the culture of quick-draw arguments and fast wit solutions in favour of more one-on-one data sharing and discussions will allow us to make more sustainable decisions.
This might all feel like a big investment of time. Way more than just one big meeting and maybe a follow-up. But you have to keep in mind that the time in meetings and one-on-ones is nothing compared to the time the solution will be in place.
I’d rather spend an extra hour at the coffee machine with someone, talking over a problem, than having to support a badly thought out solution for the next four years.
