2444: Turning Lemons into Lemonade – Rethinking Revolution in Business

We’ve all heard the saying: “When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.” It’s a simple phrase, but one that holds profound wisdom—especially in the world of business. It reminds us that even when faced with setbacks or challenges, there is always an opportunity to turn things around. Recently, as I’ve been reading 進化思考 (Evolution Thinking) by Eisuke Tachikawa, I’ve begun to see this idea in a new light.

The Power of Revolutionary Thinking

One of the core messages in 進化思考 is that revolutionary thinking often comes from unexpected places—failures, mistakes, and even oversights. These moments, which many people try to avoid, are often the very triggers for innovation and progress.

Historically, some of the greatest breakthroughs came not from initial success, but from moments when things went wrong. The key is in how you respond. Instead of viewing these situations as dead ends, revolutionary thinkers see them as pivots—a chance to change course and find new opportunities.

Pivoting as a Strategy for Success

In business, we often hear the term “pivot” used when companies need to change direction, usually after encountering a roadblock. But pivoting isn’t about abandoning your goals—it’s about finding new paths to achieve them. It’s about risk management and keeping your options open, even when things don’t go as planned.

Think of a pivot as a vital part of an opportunity portfolio—it’s your hedge against the uncertainties that naturally come with any venture. In fact, without taking risks, without putting yourself out there and trying new things, you’re essentially eliminating the possibility of innovation. No trial, no chance.

Most of us are naturally hesitant to take those risks, worried that we’ll waste time or effort if things don’t work out. This is often due to the two types of thinking we use: System 1 (our fast, intuitive decision-making process) and System 2 (our slower, more logical analysis). Both have their merits, but both can also blind us to opportunities, especially when we’re afraid of failure. Revolutionary thinking, on the other hand, encourages us to embrace those failures, learn from them, and pivot when necessary.

Innovation Through Adversity

One of the most important lessons I’ve learned in business is that setbacks are not the end—they are often the beginning of something new. When faced with a difficult situation, it’s important to ask: How can I turn this into an opportunity?

Whether it’s a product that didn’t perform as expected, a strategy that didn’t deliver the desired results, or a partnership that fell through, each of these moments is a lemon. But with the right mindset and a willingness to rethink, they can become lemonade.

As Tachikawa emphasizes, innovation doesn’t always come from following a straight path. Often, it’s the detours and disruptions that lead us to something truly groundbreaking. Revolutionary thinking is about being prepared for those moments and finding the courage to pivot when necessary.

Conclusion: Embracing the Lemonade Mindset

Turning lemons into lemonade isn’t just a clever phrase—it’s a mindset that can transform the way we approach challenges in business and life. It’s about being adaptable, learning from mistakes, and embracing the pivots that lead to new opportunities.

Revolutionary thinking teaches us that every failure contains the seeds of success. The key is to look at setbacks not as endings, but as beginnings. So, the next time life hands you a lemon, ask yourself: How can I turn this into lemonade?

2443: Rethinking Evolution and Sustainable Development Goals

 I’ve recently started reading 進化思考 (Evolution Thinking) by Eisuke Tachikawa. Although I’m still in the early stages, the prologue alone has sparked deep reflections about evolution and its connection to our present world. Tachikawa emphasizes a simple yet profound point: everything that exists today—whether living beings or human-made objects—has survived or been crafted through the process of evolution. Species, tools, infrastructure, even intangible systems, are outcomes of adaptation and change. They continue to exist because they have succeeded in meeting the needs of the present. Conversely, things that disappear or become obsolete do so because they’re no longer necessary or relevant.

This idea applies not only to living organisms but also to the designed world around us. Consider a chair, a train system, or the layout of a city. All of these evolve over time based on feedback, needs, and purpose. Designers don’t work in isolation—they respond to how people use these creations, constantly improving and refining. Evolution never stops. When something stops evolving, it essentially denies the very concept of evolution.

This brings me to a question I’ve been grappling with: how does this principle of evolution align with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? The SDGs aim to sustain and improve our current quality of life on a global scale. At first glance, this seems like a noble and necessary mission, especially given the many technological advances and comforts of modern living. But is our current situation truly the best we can aspire to?

Let’s take the example of energy. Right now, the focus is on transitioning to sustainable energy sources to support ongoing economic growth. But what if we could develop entirely new, non-hydrocarbon-based power sources that are vastly superior? Would the goals of sustaining today’s systems still be relevant, or would they need to evolve alongside our capabilities?

What strikes me as odd is that many discussions around the SDGs seem backward-looking. They seek to preserve what we have rather than explore what we could become. It’s as though we’re afraid to question whether our current trajectory is the most optimal one. In doing so, we may be limiting our potential to adapt and evolve in ways we can’t yet foresee.

Evolution, both biological and technological, thrives on change, adaptation, and experimentation. While the SDGs aim to create stability, we need to be mindful of the risk of stagnation. If we’re truly committed to long-term sustainability, we should also be willing to embrace the unknown and foster the conditions for future evolution. It’s not just about sustaining life as it is, but nurturing the conditions for it to evolve into something better.

In this way, evolution thinking can assist us in re-examining the SDGs, not as static objectives but as dynamic, evolving goals. We must allow room for humanity—and our technologies—to continue evolving in ways that might challenge our current understanding of sustainability.

2442:Bridging the Generation Gap: Planning with Gen-Z in the Uncertain Future

As we navigate the complexities of the modern workplace, understanding and integrating Gen-Z’s perspectives into project management is increasingly crucial. This generation, which values speed, flexibility, and innovation, brings a fresh approach that challenges traditional methodologies like the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle. Unlike the structured, sequential nature of PDCA, Gen-Z professionals often seek methodologies that allow for rapid iteration and immediate results, reflecting a broader shift in workplace expectations and processes.

Research indicates that Gen-Z values autonomy, digital fluency, and social responsibility—traits that influence their professional behaviors and expectations from organizational leadership (Twenge, J.M., & Campbell, S.M., 2018). To bridge the generational gap, it is essential to adapt our leadership styles and planning processes to accommodate these preferences.

Adopting servant leadership is particularly effective with Gen-Z. This approach focuses on empowering and uplifting team members rather than merely directing them. Scholarly research supports that servant leadership positively impacts job satisfaction and organizational commitment, especially among younger employees who value supportive and ethical work environments (Greenleaf, R.K., 2002).

In planning for future uncertainties, providing clear, actionable advice without imposing rigid methodologies is crucial. By presenting a variety of options and encouraging Gen-Z professionals to explore these within their frameworks, leaders can foster a sense of ownership and initiative. This not only aligns with Gen-Z’s desire for autonomy but also ensures that planning remains flexible enough to adapt to rapid changes and unexpected challenges.

As we look to the future, embracing these inclusive and flexible approaches will be key to harnessing the full potential of our diverse teams. By integrating Gen-Z’s insights and preferences into our project management strategies, we create more robust frameworks that are better equipped to handle the dynamic demands of the modern business environment.

And just a little reminder for those of us who aim to empower the next generation: avoid becoming a long-winded philosopher with endless options. Sometimes, less is more!

2441 Remote Work vs. In-Person: The Small Stones of Communication

 

Since joining my current company, which is originally based in France, I've been working remotely in Tokyo. Most of our team is located in the Kansai region, so this arrangement offers me the flexibility to balance work and family life. Being a foreign company, we have flexible working hours, which has been a huge benefit for me. It has significantly reduced my daily commute, allowing me to contribute more at home—whether it’s preparing a bath, cleaning, or handling other tasks that my spouse has been doing for the past 20 years.

Despite working remotely, I visit the Kansai office a couple of days each month. While these visits are often scheduled for specific tasks, I find that their real value lies in the in-person communication with my team. We usually communicate virtually, but nothing compares to face-to-face interaction. In yesterday’s Cross Border Link (CBL) session, a simple yet profound analogy was introduced:

「靴の中の小石」
"When there’s a small stone in your shoe, you can’t jump, run, or move freely. Once you take off the shoe and remove the stone, you realize how tiny it was, yet for the person wearing the shoe, that little stone becomes a big problem."

This analogy perfectly illustrates why in-person communication is essential for problem-solving. Often, the bottlenecks we face are small, like that little stone, but they can feel overwhelming, and people hesitate to address them. When I was in Kansai for just two days, we made significant progress on a number of issues, all thanks to real, spontaneous conversations that wouldn’t have been as effective virtually. I always wonder if I should spend more time in the Kansai office, even on an extended basis, to maintain these crucial touchpoints. After a discussion with my supervisor today, we agreed that regular visits will help keep communication flowing.

We have countless tools for virtual meetings—Zoom, Webex, Google Meet—but they still fall short when it comes to replicating live interaction. Could the Metaverse be the solution? I haven’t tried Apple’s Vision Pro yet, but maybe technology like this will one day bridge the gap between virtual and real-world communication. Perhaps the era of no business trips is just around the corner.

2440 "The Middle Manager’s Dilemma: To Lead or Be Led by AI?"

 

Yesterday marked the first day of the Cross Border Link (CBL) Week event, and the agenda was “Supporting Middle Managers in Business” through the lens of “Organization” and “Job Crafting.” The session highlighted the growing challenges faced by middle managers—a role that has become increasingly unpopular in recent years.

Interestingly, many employees today are hesitant to step into middle management positions, a stark contrast to the baby boomer generation, where climbing the corporate ladder was seen as a prestigious career milestone. For some companies, promotion to middle management was almost automatic, like stepping into an elevator that would take you to the next level.

But why is this role losing its appeal among newer generations?

Middle management often involves less decision-making power, yet it demands leadership skills, the responsibility of meeting KPIs, and managing the expectations of both senior executives and team members. This can leave middle managers feeling "sandwiched" between the C-suite and staff, burdened with expectations but lacking the authority to make impactful decisions.

Do organizations still need middle managers?

In my opinion, the future might see a diminished need for traditional middle management roles. AI and advanced IT solutions are increasingly capable of handling many of the tasks that middle managers typically perform. Much like how platform businesses have eliminated the need for mid-level traders, AI can provide accurate answers and insights based on vast amounts of data, often more efficiently than a human manager could.

Even in project management—a field in which I specialize—AI and IT could potentially take over, especially in traditional waterfall projects. These technologies might soon be better at tracking processes and adhering to plans than a human project manager.

However, if you're on the cusp of being promoted to a management position, I still encourage you to take the leap.

Why? Because stepping into management will give you the unique opportunity to see firsthand how IT and AI are reshaping the role. You’ll be in a position to manage these technologies, rather than simply playing under them. On the other hand, if you decline the promotion, you might find yourself perpetually in a subordinate role to these systems. Is that a situation you'd be comfortable with?

In the short term, middle management may not seem like the most attractive option.

We're in a transitional phase where management styles are evolving towards a more IT and AI-oriented approach. Additionally, you might currently have a manager who isn't particularly effective, which can add to the frustration. But remember, you have the potential to do better—and to shape the future of management in this changing landscape.