Some may believe that it is better to have staff who will argue back, than have a room full of yes-men and yes-women.  In Japan, in particular, it is hard to get anyone to dispute the boss’s opinion, so if we get counterpoints to what we think, we should be popping corks and celebrating.  This is a fine line for staff to tread.  How can they raise issues with the boss, without seeming to be in opposition with what the boss thinks or wants?  We hear a lot of talk about the importance of creating a psychologically safe environment and most of this is coming out of the West.  Japan certainly didn’t pioneer or promulgate this idea.  Are bosses really comfortable with a psychologically safe environment where their staff can challenge them on what they want done?  There is a lot of other rhetoric about becoming the “servant leader”.  The idea being that the boss’s job is to help the staff succeed, clearing obstacles and empowering people to go forth and prosper.    The problem with a lot of this is we are dealing with human beings, who are emotional, status conscious, suffering from doubts and imposter syndrome.  The boss can be a fragile creature.  They often wear the mantle of leadership heavily on their shoulders are constantly wondering if what they have strategised was correct and whether they have what it takes to move the enterprise forward to success.  The super confident boss is another danger.  They have no doubts about their own ability and are going to crash through or crash.  These sorts of people can blow up an organisation, if what they have decided doesn’t work or is incorrect in its assumptions.  Confidence is a double-edged blade, which must be wielded carefully.  Good to have surety, just not too much.  Bosses are usually in the grip of a death spiral of too many meetings and too much email.  In other words they are chronically time poor.  This definitely translates into not much coaching going on for the team.  The classic error is to equate handing out orders like pirate captain with actually coaching the team members.  There is a world of difference there, which should be obvious, but in a time constrained world it is often masked and unclear as to what is really happening.  It also translates into a type of boss short hand communication style, which is taking minimalism to a new low.  Speaking in headlines replaces speaking in full paragraphs, as the words pour forth in a staccato, rapid fire fashion, as the whirling dervish boss moves from one work scene to the next.  When the boss hits resistance, they are usually flying along and the reaction is rarely positive.  Being reasonable and contemplative needs time to consider, to ponder, to reflect on the issue and its ramifications. It is much simpler to bark out an order and keep moving.  Bosses are usually more skilled, more experienced and more senior than their staff.  They are better informed of what is going on inside the organisation and get regular updates from the senior executives, so that they are highly in tune with the strategic direction of the firm.  They are giant sponges who absorb all of this information and they are miserly when it comes to sharing it with the staff. This can be a protective device to monopolise information so that they remain in control or it could be they don’t remember to share, because they are simply too busy. The upshot is they feel they don’t need to listen to opinions from staff because they know more and know better.  Staff popping up with ideas can be brusquely dismissed as a result, with little thought to the impact of that dismissal.  Bosses are like sharks, they have to keep swimming and cannot stop moving – they don’t linger long. What can the boss do instead?  Firstly – stop.  Stop whatever they are doing or thinking and really concentrate on what they are being told by their staff.  That means trying to plumb all of the body language and words, for what isn’t being stated openly.  Trying to fill in the gaps of