
From research to the workplace
Discuss a work situation you would like to revisit with your team.
The contact form includes this page’s title and link. Add the work situation you would like to discuss.
Workplace consulting services (Japanese)
REQUEST | Organizational-Andragogy®
338,000 participants · 980 companiesBehavioral data from our fieldwork (cumulative).
A day with the top 5% at workAn illustrated guide
How you take a request, speak at a meeting or follow up on advice.Find one habit to try in your own work.
Choose where to start ↓The top 5% addresssmall gaps in understanding.
Through experience, they have learned how small gaps in understanding can affect later work. They check the other person’s intention and share their own understanding. These small actions become everyday habits.
Action
Check the other person’s intention.
Report the result of what you tried.
Thinking
What they pay attention to
and how they think about it.
Values
What they consider
important in their work.
↶ Responses to what you try inform your next experience and judgment.
Small differences in understanding can change the work that follows.
Share of mix-ups at work
68–72%
The proportion of work-related mix-ups accounted for by small differences in understanding arising in everyday conversation.
More hesitation, rework and repeat explanations
Up to about3.2×
The observed factor of increase in later hesitation, rework and repeat explanations when work continued with differences in understanding unresolved.
Decision-making accuracy
35–40% lower
Decision-making accuracy tended to decline when the conversation continued with differences in understanding unresolved.
Patterns observed in our workplace practice. See how we observe the work ↓
Try one habit at work today
Planning · Starting work Start with this one
Decide what you aim to reach today before starting work.
View this action → View all 16 habits in this scene ↓After trying it, notice what the other person said or did.
Explore the reasons behind the habits in the book →A day in planning116 habits across 13 work situations.
Develop useful ideas by looking at the work of those who will use and implement them.
Choose a situation to see the habits, our observations and three ways to interpret what happened.
Morning→Working together→Changes during the day→Before leaving
Throughout the day
13 Imagining others' workSix habits for considering the other person’s work in any situation.Start of the day
Getting started in the morning
0116 habits
Starting work
“I want to move the idea forward, but something still bothers me.”
Day overview ↑Decide what you aim to reach today before starting work.
People who decide what they aim to reach today before starting a task tend to spend 33% less time hesitating before they begin, on average.
Start in the morning on work that may become harder later in the day.
People who identify in the morning the work likely to become a problem later that day tend to have 29% fewer urgent issues to handle in the evening, on average.
Check what unfinished work is waiting for.
People who distinguish unfinished work awaiting action from work awaiting a decision tend to take 36% less time to restart it the next day, on average.
When your thinking stalls, draw the relationships or flow.
People who draw the relationships when their thinking stalls tend to overlook 33% fewer issues, on average.
Give people waiting for you an update on what to expect in the morning.
People who update those waiting for them in the morning tend to receive 33% fewer reminders or requests for clarification, on average.
Also decide what you will not work on today.
People who remove 1 task before starting tend to begin their priority work 24% sooner, on average.
Choose when to check email to suit your work.
People who decide before starting work whether to handle incoming messages first or protect time for thinking tend to have 27% fewer interruptions to concentration from unplanned responses during the morning, on average.
Scan subject lines for the messages you need before opening email.
People who sort priorities from subject lines alone tend to spend 28% less time hesitating before their first reply, on average.
Separate emails to answer now from emails to check later.
People who sort incoming emails by the type of response needed tend to receive 34% fewer requests for clarification after replying, on average.
Check the actual deadline for an urgent message.
People who separate urgent requests by their content before responding tend to have 33% less rework after handling them, on average.
Find the role expected of you in a long email.
People who read a confusing email by separating its purpose from what is expected of them tend to have 36% fewer misunderstandings after replying, on average.
Check the request in the email before opening an attachment.
People who identify what to check before opening an attachment tend to spend 34% less time reviewing the material, on average.
Identify the kind of response the other person needs before replying.
People who check what kind of reply the other person needs before responding tend to receive 39% fewer requests for clarification afterward, on average.
Understand what the other person is trying to decide.
Including decision criteria in a reply is associated with 38% fewer follow-up email exchanges on average.
If you cannot answer right away, first say when you can reply.
People who give an expected reply time when they cannot answer immediately tend to receive 44% fewer reminders from the other person, on average.
When you feel unsettled, choose one first action.
Behavioral observations show that people who decide on even one first action at the start of the workday tend to make 33% fewer emotionally driven replies or remarks, on average.
Understand this scene’s actions through three perspectives
Time the implementation team spends waiting for a reply and time the planner spends developing an idea share the same morning. The first task depends on what yesterday’s responses meant and how much can be decided today.
Art Thinking
Ask what the work should advance as you choose where to startRead explanationClose explanation+
Set an intended outcome and map unfinished work and its connections as preparation for checking the question behind the plan. In incoming messages, imagine not only the request but what the sender needs to decide. While organizing the order of tasks, reconsider whom today’s output should help.
Logical Sensemaking®
Look beyond workload to roles and pending decisionsRead explanationClose explanation+
Separate work waiting for action from work waiting for a decision. Read messages for their purpose, deadline, and the role expected of you. This recasts busyness in terms of what is understood and what has stopped. State the first action and when you can reply, then check that both sides understand.
Judgment Design®
Consider both thinking time and the time others spend waitingRead explanationClose explanation+
Review today’s outcome, work that may become demanding later, and time for incoming messages, then choose the order and scope. Check urgent deadlines and give an expectation when you cannot answer yet. Consider access to information, advice, and thinking time so you can choose a first action even when emotions shift.
How might you put this into words at work? See a book example across three roles →
Choose another situation ↑025 habits
Receiving a task
“I want to propose something that meets their expectations quickly.”
Day overview ↑Restate a request in your own understanding of it.
People who check their understanding in one sentence immediately after receiving a request tend to have 34% fewer misunderstandings or revisions sent back after the work, on average.
State your understanding, then deepen your understanding of the other person’s work.
Reply in one sentence and hear what the other person adds. Use that response to reconsider your understanding and approach.
01State your understanding in one sentence
Planning
02Hear what the other person adds
Senior colleague
03Revise your understanding and approach
Describe how the idea would be used and the scope of a trial. Check against the implementers’ work and set out the time and preparation needed.
Check the meaning you supplied yourself, and revisit the purpose if needed. Take unresolved questions to the people or situations that can help clarify them.
Use responses from users and implementers to reconsider the idea’s purpose and the conditions under which it can be tried.
Why can the same words bring different work to mind?
People construct meaning using what they know and what seems important in the situation, as well as the words they hear. The following studies examine differences in those cues.
Knowledge and context guide understanding
Across several experiments, Bransford and Johnson discuss how comprehension and memory draw on a reader’s knowledge and the context provided, as well as the words themselves. At work, sharing a document’s intended use and situation can help people clarify what the words mean.
Bransford & Johnson (1973)Perspective changes which information matters
Experiments in which participants read the same stories from different perspectives found that information important to the assigned perspective was more likely to be learned and later recalled. At work, different purposes and uses can similarly lead people to give different weight to the same material.
Pichert & Anderson (1977)You and the other person may see different things
In experiments involving instructions to move objects, listeners looked even at objects the speaker could not see. The work showed a process of revising interpretations in light of what the speaker could see. At work, check which documents and conditions each person has in view.
Keysar et al. (2000)Browse research on dialogue and shared understanding →
Name the work in terms of what it is useful for.
People who put the purpose of the work into one sentence before starting tend to receive 32% fewer requests for revision after submitting it, on average.
Check who will use the work and in what situation.
People who check who will use a document and in what situation before preparing it tend to receive 33% fewer requests for clarification after submitting it, on average.
Check the reactions of people you cannot meet directly through records or those who deal with them.
People who check reactions with someone who actually dealt with the other person before preparing a document or considering a proposal tend to receive 30% fewer requests for revision after submitting it, on average.
Remember that the relationship will continue before replying.
Behavioral observations show that people who consider the future relationship when replying in an emotional situation tend to encounter 30% fewer later instances of holding back from seeking advice or delayed reporting, on average.
Understand this scene’s actions through three perspectives
If the requester and user are different people, they may imagine different finished results from the same request. Use and user responses help the planner consider what to accept and the extent of their decision authority.
Art Thinking
Move between the request’s words and the user’s needsRead explanationClose explanation+
State the request back as you understand it and check who will use the result and in which situation. This exchange can help you explore the value a plan should offer. Learn from records or colleagues about users you cannot meet directly, and broaden your questions toward needs the initial request did not reveal.
Logical Sensemaking®
Compare the name of the task with how it will be usedRead explanationClose explanation+
Putting the purpose into words does not by itself mean that both sides understand it alike. Compare the understanding you shared with the requester against actual use and responses. Through dialogue with people you will continue working with, reconsider the purpose of the work you accepted.
Judgment Design®
Check access to the information needed before accepting the workRead explanationClose explanation+
Sharing your understanding and asking about use and responses give the planner material for choosing an approach. Check what has been entrusted to you, where you can seek advice, and whether you can learn what happens after use. Consider conditions for revising choices from acceptance through delivery.
How might you put this into words at work? See a book example across three roles →
Choose another situation ↑0315 habits
Email and chat
“Even a good idea may be difficult to implement as it stands.”
Day overview ↑State clearly what you want the other person to do.
People who put the action they want from the other person into one sentence before sending a message tend to receive 35% fewer requests for clarification afterward, on average.
State whether the purpose is checking, deciding, or sharing in the subject line or opening.
People who state the purpose in the subject line or opening tend to receive 37% fewer follow-up questions asking what needs to be checked, on average.
State the request or direction first, then give the background.
People who put the purpose first in a long email tend to receive 38% fewer questions asking what the recipient is supposed to do, on average.
Put the deadline and what needs checking near the beginning.
People who put the deadline near the beginning tend to see 34% fewer instances of the deadline being overlooked or checked again, on average.
Say specifically where you want the other person to look in a document.
People who specify what to check when sending an attachment tend to receive 31% fewer repeat checks from the recipient, on average.
Say whether a reply is needed and what you want in it.
People who state before sending whether a reply is needed tend to have 36% fewer clarification exchanges afterward, on average.
Bring the main point together before sending.
People who bring their message down to 1 main point before sending a series of chat messages tend to have 35% fewer clarification exchanges afterward, on average.
Add a brief explanation where the reader may be unsure.
People who add a brief explanation of a point the recipient may be unsure about before sending tend to have 34% fewer clarification exchanges afterward, on average.
Frame a difficult message as something you want to check.
People who soften their wording before sending a difficult message tend to receive 32% fewer defensive replies afterward, on average.
Say when a response is needed in messages sent outside working hours.
People who add a note such as no reply needed or tomorrow or later is fine to messages sent outside working hours tend to receive 31% fewer unnecessary immediate replies, on average.
If you want to reply immediately, save a draft and review it.
People who save an emotional reply as a draft and review it tend to make 37% fewer corrections or follow-up apologies after sending, on average.
Before replying, check that you have answered the question.
People who reread the intention behind the other person's question before replying tend to receive 36% fewer requests for clarification afterward, on average.
Step away briefly, then review the message from the reader's position.
People who leave a reply they are unsure about for a short time before reviewing it tend to make 33% fewer corrections or supplementary replies after sending, on average.
Close the exchange with words that leave room for future consultation.
People who add how to proceed next at the end of a reply tend to receive early requests for advice from the same person 27% more often, on average.
Adjust words that will remain on record so their assumptions are clear.
Behavioral observations show that people who review an objection with its lasting record in mind tend to make 35% fewer corrections or supplementary messages after sending, on average.
Understand this scene’s actions through three perspectives
A short reply from the implementation team may combine an opinion about the idea with a judgment about whether it can be tried in current conditions. The information and time needed depend on what the message was intended to check.
Art Thinking
Use responses to check how the plan comes acrossRead explanationClose explanation+
Stating the request, pointing to the relevant part, and addressing likely confusion create opportunities to consider how the other person can contribute. Leave the draft, return as a reader, and compare it with the actual reply. Organizing the message can also reopen what the plan requires you to check together.
Logical Sensemaking®
Connect the message’s meaning with the reader’s workRead explanationClose explanation+
A clear purpose, deadline, and indication of whether a reply is needed, together with checking that you answered the question, help both sides compare their understanding. Look beyond background detail or strong wording to what the reader needs to decide and do next.
Judgment Design®
Consider the conditions for requesting a judgment and receiving a replyRead explanationClose explanation+
Knowing what to check, by when, and whether a reply is needed helps the reader allocate time and attention. Include after-hours messages and emotionally charged replies when checking whether there is room to think. Close with words that keep consultation possible and consider how people can participate in the decision.
How might you put this into words at work? See a book example across three roles →
Choose another situation ↑Time spent working together
Working with other people
0417 habits
Meetings
“There are needs beyond what my idea addresses.”
What to look forHow might this proposal look to the people who will use it and to those who will carry it out?
Day overview ↑Decide what to focus on before entering the next meeting.
People who set aside emotions from a previous appointment before the next one tend to make 34% fewer corrections or overly rushed explanations in the next conversation, on average.
Say where you want people to look before explaining a document.
People who specify the page or section to look at before explaining tend to receive 42% fewer questions about where to look during meetings, on average.
Keep your explanation brief and leave time for the other person to think.
People who decide before a meeting to shorten their own explanation tend to hear 32% more contributions from participants during the meeting, on average.
Consider the other person's likely concerns in advance.
People who anticipate 1 likely objection before a meeting tend to make 34% fewer revisions to their explanation after an objection is raised, on average.
Check from another position even when everyone seems to agree.
People who ask about problems faced by those doing the work during meetings tend to receive 33% fewer requests for clarification after meetings, on average.
When opinions differ, check the assumptions behind each one.
People who note the assumptions behind conflicting opinions during meetings tend to carry 34% fewer unresolved issues into later discussions, on average.
Wait 2 seconds before filling a silence.
People who habitually pause rather than immediately speak into a silence during meetings tend to hear 29% more additional contributions from participants, on average.
Ask about the specific problem behind strong words.
People who reinterpret a forceful remark in a meeting as a sign of a problem tend to have 32% fewer confrontational exchanges afterward, on average.
Check what information is missing before speaking.
People who clarify their purpose before speaking tend to have 31% fewer digressions caused by introducing additional issues during meetings, on average.
Create an opening for someone who has been quiet to speak.
People who check the expressions and reactions of participants who have not spoken during meetings tend to hear 33% fewer additional concerns after the meeting, on average.
Use the other person's own words to continue the conversation.
People who first acknowledge the other person's words before speaking during meetings tend to receive 34% fewer objections or defensive replies afterward, on average.
Note what feels wrong so you can check it later.
People who note a concern as something to check rather than immediately objecting during meetings tend to have 30% fewer confrontational exchanges in the meeting, on average.
After a meeting or business discussion, ask what was difficult to say there.
People who briefly ask after a meeting about concerns that were difficult to raise or obstacles to implementation tend to have 32% fewer implementation holds or decisions sent back for revision, on average.
Record the owner, deadline, and next action in the meeting notes.
People who clarify the owner, deadline, and 1 next action immediately after a meeting tend to have 35% fewer delays in implementation afterward, on average.
Tell the person who will act next about the agreed direction promptly.
People who briefly pass the outcome of a meeting to the first person who needs to act that same day tend to have 36% fewer gaps in confirmation before the next meeting, on average.
Note words the other person repeats and use them in your next preparation.
People who record words the other person repeated after a meeting tend to have 36% fewer misunderstandings in the next interaction, on average.
When emotions run high, narrow down what needs deciding now to one thing.
Behavioral observations show that people who bring a heated conversation back to the issue tend to leave 30% fewer matters undecided afterward, on average.
Understand this scene’s actions through three perspectives
Users and implementers may support the same idea for different reasons. Considering those reasons and the discretion of the next person to act helps you reconsider what the meeting actually decided.
Art Thinking
Look beyond agreement to perspectives not yet voicedRead explanationClose explanation+
Prepare the material and time for an explanation, and attend to silence, concerns, and unease as opportunities to explore a plan’s possibilities. Listen to the assumptions behind disagreement and to those who will implement the idea. Words and candid comments after the meeting can also reopen what the plan should achieve.
Logical Sensemaking®
Update your understanding through words before and after the meetingRead explanationClose explanation+
Acknowledge others’ words, hear strong comments in terms of concrete difficulties, and check assumptions and missing information. Compare comments during the meeting with later concerns and repeated words. Read the planning record for changes in understanding as well as for decisions made.
Judgment Design®
Connect conditions for speaking with conditions for implementationRead explanationClose explanation+
Set aside emotions from earlier interactions, identify which material to examine, and provide time to think and opportunities to speak. These conditions support participation in a decision. Record responsibilities, deadlines, and next actions, and reach the person who acts first. Connect the meeting’s choices with checks on implementation afterward.
How might you put this into words at work? See a book example across three roles →
Choose another situation ↑059 habits
Seeking advice
“Narrowing down the idea can also leave things out.”
Day overview ↑Prepare a tentative proposal before asking for advice.
People who prepare 1 tentative proposal before asking for advice tend to receive 34% fewer requests for clarification afterward, on average.
Separate the facts, tentative proposal, and uncertainties when asking for advice.
People who separate the facts, proposal, and uncertainties before seeking advice tend to have 36% less backtracking during the discussion, on average.
Show what each option offers and what it makes harder.
People who clarify the advantages and concerns for each option before seeking advice tend to receive 33% fewer requests for clarification during the discussion, on average.
Keep the advice you receive in a short phrase you can use at work.
People who briefly note the advice immediately after a discussion tend to repeat the same request for advice 32% less often, on average.
Understand the decision criteria behind the advice.
People who reflect on the reasons behind advice after a discussion tend to seek the same type of advice 30% less often, on average.
Note the difference between what you and the adviser were looking at.
People who note 1 difference between their own thinking and the advice afterward tend to repeat the same type of request for advice 31% less often, on average.
Decide how to use the advice in your next piece of work.
People who decide after receiving advice what to do next time in the same situation tend to seek advice again on the same topic 33% less often, on average.
After using advice, briefly report what happened.
People who report the results after receiving advice tend to receive additional advice from their manager or a more experienced colleague in later discussions at about 1.5 times the frequency.
When emotions arise, reply briefly and return to checking the work.
Behavioral observations show that people who shorten their replies or remarks when emotions arise tend to have 31% less unnecessary broadening of the discussion afterward, on average.
Understand this scene’s actions through three perspectives
What an adviser notices in a tentative idea may reveal user circumstances that Planning overlooked. Use the reasons behind the advice to consider what the planner can choose and where it can be tried.
Art Thinking
Develop the question through differences between your idea and the adviceRead explanationClose explanation+
Show an unfinished idea with its strengths, concerns, and remaining uncertainties. This opens the planning question to someone else. Notice differences in what each of you saw and consider what to try next. What happens after the trial can also help you reconsider the idea’s possibilities.
Logical Sensemaking®
Trace what you understood before and after receiving adviceRead explanationClose explanation+
Separate facts, a tentative idea, and uncertainty. Even when emotions shift, return briefly to what needs checking. Record the advice and reflect on its reasons and what you overlooked. Consider where to use it next and report what actually happened, treating the whole exchange as a way to check understanding.
Judgment Design®
Let advice lead to experience of choosing againRead explanationClose explanation+
Preparing an idea and comparison points lets the planner show a judgment they have already considered. After learning the adviser’s criteria, check that the person can still choose what to adopt and how to try it. Include time for consultation and reflection after implementation as conditions supporting judgment experience.
How might you put this into words at work? See a book example across three roles →
Choose another situation ↑067 habits
Asking someone to help
“I do not want the trial to become an extra burden.”
Day overview ↑Provide the information the other person needs to begin the work.
People who bring together the purpose, deadline, and reference material before making a request tend to have 36% fewer clarification exchanges afterward, on average.
Prepare an alternative before asking, in case the request is difficult.
People who prepare a backup plan before making a request tend to have 31% less time when the work is stalled afterward, on average.
Add that difficulties can be raised while the work is still in progress.
People who ask others to consult them early if a request proves difficult tend to receive 32% fewer reports of unfinished work just before the deadline, on average.
Make the first task small when asking someone to start.
People who divide a difficult request into small parts when explaining it tend to have 34% fewer delays in getting started afterward, on average.
Tell the other person what their help made possible.
People who give specific feedback on how the help was useful after a request tend to receive cooperation 30% sooner the next time they ask, on average.
Keep a record of a request that helped the work move forward so you can use it again.
People who note what worked well in how they made a request tend to have 28% less rework the next time they ask, on average.
When responses do not match, review the assumptions you communicated.
Behavioral observations show that people who review the assumptions they communicated when the other person's response does not match tend to have 31% fewer clarification exchanges of the same kind, on average.
Understand this scene’s actions through three perspectives
A small change for the person requesting a trial may require the implementer to reorganize their usual work. The scope of the request depends on how it was understood and how much the person can adjust.
Art Thinking
Explore possibilities together rather than fix the form of the requestRead explanationClose explanation+
Prepare the purpose, reference material, a manageable starting request, and an alternative. Hearing the other person’s response and difficulties can reveal possibilities beyond the original way of making it. Explain what helped, and use the exchange to check together what the plan should achieve.
Logical Sensemaking®
Revisit how you asked and how the other person respondedRead explanationClose explanation+
Distinguish communicating a request from the other person understanding it as the same work. Compare questions and mismatches along the way with the purpose, scope, and priorities you conveyed. Record useful ways of asking and carry understanding between Planning and implementation into the next piece of work.
Judgment Design®
Clarify discretion and opportunities to return for consultationRead explanationClose explanation+
Alongside information, explain an alternative if the request is difficult, a starting scope, and opportunities to consult during the work. These are conditions for the other person to proceed using their own judgment. Include reporting what their help contributed to, so chosen actions can become experience to learn from.
How might you put this into words at work? See a book example across three roles →
Choose another situation ↑079 habits
Giving an update
“Work was held up somewhere I had not expected.”
Day overview ↑Start a report with the information the other person needs to decide.
People who begin a report with what helps the recipient tend to receive 34% fewer follow-up questions afterward, on average.
Decide how to state the subject briefly before reporting.
People who put the purpose of a report into one sentence beforehand tend to receive 38% fewer questions from their manager asking what the report is about, on average.
Clarify what you want the other person to decide before reporting.
People who identify 1 decision they want before reporting tend to receive 35% fewer requests for clarification from their manager, on average.
Explain what the numbers mean for the work.
People who briefly explain the meaning of numbers when reporting them tend to receive 36% fewer requests for clarification from their manager, on average.
Limit the options you seek advice on to two, and make the comparison clear.
People who narrow their options to no more than 2 tend to receive 33% fewer questions from their manager asking which option is better, on average.
Include your own proposed approach when asking for a decision.
People who include their own assessment before asking for a decision tend to receive 32% fewer requests for clarification from their manager, on average.
Consider who or which departments the decision will affect before reporting.
People who clarify who or which departments a decision will affect before reporting tend to receive 34% fewer requests for clarification afterward, on average.
Anticipate what the other person may ask and include that information first.
People who anticipate what their manager is likely to ask next before reporting tend to receive 34% fewer requests for clarification afterward, on average.
When emotions arise, take time to check before deciding.
Behavioral observations show that people who avoid an immediate decision when emotions arise and briefly say they need time to check tend to revise 34% fewer decisions later, on average.
Understand this scene’s actions through three perspectives
Planning and implementation may not interpret figures from a trial in the same way. What happened to users and what the next decision-maker wants to compare determine the material a report needs.
Art Thinking
Make the reported idea a way to examine its valueRead explanationClose explanation+
Show your interpretation and alternatives, and consider the people beyond the decision. These actions let others examine a plan’s possibilities. Questions from the reader and effects on other departments can broaden attention from whether the idea is good to whom it helps and how.
Logical Sensemaking®
Connect figures and interpretations with the situation of the workRead explanationClose explanation+
Define the report’s purpose and requested decision, and add what the figures mean, your interpretation, and expected effects. Use these to distinguish facts from interpretations with the reader. Questions and follow-up checks can update your understanding of the situation surrounding the plan.
Judgment Design®
Provide comparison material and time to check itRead explanationClose explanation+
Organize the purpose, alternatives, and effects on others so the decision-maker can reach the information they need. Include the planner’s own interpretation as part of the decision material. Even when emotions run high, retain time to check before deciding and an opportunity to return to the situation after the decision.
How might you put this into words at work? See a book example across three roles →
Choose another situation ↑What happens in one exchange shapes the next person’s work.
Breaks and unexpected events
Adjusting as the day unfolds
086 habits
Restroom and breaks
“I thought they had been pleased with it.”
Day overview ↑Exhale as you flush, and decide what to do first when you return.
People who pause for 3–5 seconds in the restroom just after feeling rushed, rather than returning immediately, tend to have 31% fewer follow-up checks after conversations, on average.
Check your expression in the mirror before meeting someone.
People who check their own expression before a one-to-one conversation, business discussion, or meeting have been observed to hear 27% more from the other person at the beginning, on average.
Reflect on how you spoke together with the other person's reaction.
People who briefly reflect on how they spoke and the other person's reaction have been observed to encounter 33% fewer delayed reports or instances of holding back from seeking advice in later interactions, on average.
When you feel rushed, separate decisions needed now from decisions that can wait.
People who separate decisions when they feel rushed have been observed to have 35% fewer later changes of decision or repeated checks, on average.
Tell yourself what to do first, even if you do not feel fully settled.
People who briefly decide what to do first before returning to their desk after feeling discouraged tend to have 31% fewer repeated work-related checks after returning, on average.
If you are about to reply impulsively, do one different action first.
Behavioral observations show that people who insert 1 action unrelated to replying just after emotions arise, rather than replying immediately, tend to make 31% fewer corrections after conversations, on average.
Understand this scene’s actions through three perspectives
Even after a promising discussion, you may not yet know how the other person understood it. Step away and review their words and your feelings to separate what to decide now from what to check next.
Art Thinking
Step away briefly and return to a different perspectiveRead explanationClose explanation+
Exhale, interrupt the flow with another action, and reflect on your expression and wording. This creates time to notice your own perspective and reconsider how you are relating to the other person, as well as the plan’s content. When choosing the first action on return, revisit what you want to check.
Logical Sensemaking®
Separate your state from what happened in the workRead explanationClose explanation+
Distinguish feeling anxious or discouraged from the response the other person actually showed and the decision needed now. Review your expression and wording, and separate decisions for now from those for later. This helps you reconsider the planning situation beyond the intensity of your feelings alone.
Judgment Design®
Check whether there is room to pause a reply or decisionRead explanationClose explanation+
A short pause, separating decisions, and choosing the first action on return are conditions for reconsidering a response. Check whether the work demands continuous instant replies and whether you can return to checking or consultation. Consider whether the planner has room to make a judgment.
How might you put this into words at work? See a book example across three roles →
Choose another situation ↑098 habits
Handling problems
“Things are not going as prepared.”
Day overview ↑Clarify the impact of a problem and the first response to take.
People who clarify who is affected and the initial response before reporting bad news tend to receive 38% fewer requests for clarification afterward, on average.
State what actually happened in the first report.
People who note only the facts of what happened before reporting bad news tend to have 35% fewer repeated checks of the facts afterward, on average.
Check the scope of the impact before explaining the cause.
People who check the scope of the impact before reporting bad news tend to receive 36% fewer requests for clarification afterward, on average.
Along with apologizing, consider what the other person needs to move their work forward.
People who clarify the other person's difficulties before reporting bad news tend to give 33% fewer repeated explanations or additional apologies afterward, on average.
State the situation and initial response before explaining the circumstances.
People who remove words that could sound like excuses before reporting bad news tend to give 32% fewer additional explanations or corrections afterward, on average.
Say what is not yet certain, what you will check, and when.
People who clearly state what is still uncertain in an interim report and when more will be known tend to receive 40% fewer repeat checks or reminders from their manager, on average.
Separate what you know from what you do not yet know.
People who separate what they know from what they do not yet know before reporting bad news tend to have 34% fewer repeated checks of the facts afterward, on average.
When emotions arise, check what is actually happening.
Behavioral observations show that people who begin by checking the facts when emotions arise tend to have 32% fewer confrontational exchanges after the conversation, on average.
Understand this scene’s actions through three perspectives
When a trial does not go to plan, the person experiencing difficulty may differ from the person choosing the response. How much of the effects has been checked also changes who can choose which response now.
Art Thinking
Take necessary action while exploring connections not yet visibleRead explanationClose explanation+
Identify affected people and their difficulties, and organize the first response. After beginning the necessary action, leave unconfirmed matters as questions and check connections with a diagram or other material. Bring conditions that Planning alone had overlooked into the later review.
Logical Sensemaking®
Separate facts from uncertainty and update the explanationRead explanationClose explanation+
Communicate what happened, confirmed effects, and unknowns separately from explanations of the circumstances. Include the other person’s difficulties and when more information will be available. Check the basis of your understanding and update your interpretation of the problem as further findings arrive.
Judgment Design®
Choose an initial response and create a route back to the findingsRead explanationClose explanation+
Use confirmed information and the scope of effects to consider who can do what. Look for someone to consult about uncertainty, time to check, and opportunities to share results. Consider conditions for the planner to compare the chosen initial action with what happened afterward and learn from it.
How might you put this into words at work? See a book example across three roles →
Choose another situation ↑108 habits
When work gets busy
“I feel rushed, as though I have to decide everything.”
Day overview ↑Check what the other person actually needs before adding more work.
People who check which customer decision the work will support before adding more work tend to have 31% less work to redo later, on average.
Understand whose work a requested task will help and how.
People who check whose work the task will move forward and in what way before starting tend to have 29% less work to redo after submitting it, on average.
First write down the work on your mind.
People who write out their tasks when busy tend to spend 32% less time hesitating before starting, on average.
Take care of a small matter that is weighing on your mind first.
People who first handle 1 short task when busy tend to take 28% less time to restart their next main task, on average.
When work overlaps, check the order in which to proceed.
People who check the order of work early when they have taken on too much tend to have 34% fewer unplanned delays, on average.
Separate being busy into workload, uncertainty, and waiting.
People who separate their work by type when busy tend to spend 30% less time hesitating before starting, on average.
Look for ways to reduce the scope before taking on too much.
People who first look for ways to reduce their work when busy tend to have 27% less unplanned overtime that day, on average.
Slow your speech a little when emotions run high.
Behavioral observations show that people who deliberately slow their speech when emotions arise tend to encounter guarded reactions from the other person 29% less often, on average.
Understand this scene’s actions through three perspectives
Even on a crowded planning day, having many tasks, being unable to choose trial conditions, and waiting for a reply are different situations. Looking at what the implementation team must do next changes which question to address first.
Art Thinking
Return to the value of the plan before adding more tasksRead explanationClose explanation+
Check the other person’s circumstances and what the work helps, then look for scope to reduce in the tasks you have written down. These actions revisit the plan’s purpose and means. Distinguishing volume, uncertainty, and waiting can bring you back to which plan is needed now, as well as how to proceed.
Logical Sensemaking®
Understand busyness through the work’s state and the other person’s needsRead explanationClose explanation+
Put tasks on paper and distinguish volume, uncertainty, and waiting to examine the feeling of busyness. Compare whose work each task helps with the other person’s account. When reconsidering small requests and priorities, understand both the purpose and the present state of the work.
Judgment Design®
Check whether the order and scope can be chosen againRead explanationClose explanation+
Completing small requests, checking the order, and reducing the work held are ways the planner can influence the load. Consider whether information and advice are available and uncertainty and waiting can be addressed. Include room to slow your speech when considering whether you can choose again.
How might you put this into words at work? See a book example across three roles →
Choose another situation ↑116 habits
Receiving corrective feedback
“But I had thought about so much and included it all.”
Day overview ↑When you receive feedback, ask what to change next.
People who check what to improve immediately after being corrected tend to have the same issue raised again 34% less often, on average.
Understand feedback as an action you can change next time.
People who understand feedback in terms of specific actions tend to take 32% less time to begin making improvements after being corrected, on average.
Extract a point you can use next time from strong words.
People who extract 1 usable point after being corrected tend to show a rate of behavioral improvement afterward about 1.5 times as high.
Tell the person who gave feedback what action you will change next.
People who respond to feedback with a specific corrective action tend to receive the same correction 31% less often, on average.
On the day you receive feedback, note one action you can change from tomorrow.
People who decide on 1 action to change after being corrected tend to have 30% less uncertainty about how to begin work the next day, on average.
Check your current role before replying.
Behavioral observations show that people who check their own role before replying when emotions arise tend to make 29% fewer corrections after the conversation, on average.
Understand this scene’s actions through three perspectives
Feedback on a plan may mix difficulties for users with difficulties for those implementing it. Who struggles, and in which situation, changes which behavior the planner can alter next.
Art Thinking
Turn feedback into a question for testing the plan againRead explanationClose explanation+
Identify usable feedback within strong language and ask what should change. Altering the plan and checking it creates an opportunity to understand how it looked to the other person. Communicating and recording the next action prepares you to test your own perspective again.
Logical Sensemaking®
Move from an impression of evaluation to behavior and your roleRead explanationClose explanation+
Do not extend feedback into a judgment of your whole self. Reconsider it through actual behavior and your work role. Identify what you can use next and state the behavior you will change. Compare that recorded action with later responses to update your understanding of how to develop the plan.
Judgment Design®
Choose a correction and check what happens after using itRead explanationClose explanation+
Ask what to correct, choose a change in behavior, and tell the other person. These conditions connect feedback with judgment experience rather than stopping at receiving it. Check the scope you can try tomorrow, available advice, and opportunities to learn the response after revision, then consider what to use in the next planning decision.
How might you put this into words at work? See a book example across three roles →
Choose another situation ↑Even an ordinary day brings changes of plan and moments when emotions run high.
End of the day
Carrying today’s work into tomorrow
124 habits
Before leaving work
“There are things I have not fully given shape to yet.”
Day overview ↑Keep unanswered questions as work to check next.
People who note unanswered items in a checklist after handling a matter tend to leave 34% fewer items without a reply, on average.
Reflect what you hear about the other person's schedule and workload in your plans.
People who note the other person's schedule or workload from an informal conversation and adjust their own plans tend to have 31% fewer waits for confirmation or requests needing to be reissued the next day, on average.
Write down what to start with tomorrow.
People who decide on 1 first action for the next day before finishing work tend to spend 33% less time hesitating before starting the next morning, on average.
When expressing dissatisfaction, state the conditions the work needs.
Behavioral observations show that people who explain why something causes difficulty in terms of the work standards they value, when dissatisfied with someone, tend to receive 33% fewer defensive responses after raising the issue, on average.
Understand this scene’s actions through three perspectives
Some questions left before leaving can be decided independently tomorrow; others need input about implementation schedules first. What you learned today and other people’s plans help show where to resume.
Art Thinking
Shape tomorrow’s plan through remaining questions and others’ circumstancesRead explanationClose explanation+
Record what you could not answer and reflect schedules and workloads learned in brief conversations in your plan. Use them together to choose tomorrow’s starting point. Putting dissatisfaction into words as needed work conditions can direct attention toward assumptions behind the plan and questions to check next.
Logical Sensemaking®
Connect what you learned today with tomorrow’s workRead explanationClose explanation+
Record unanswered matters and schedules or workloads you learned from others, then decide what to do tomorrow. These actions connect scattered information with the next piece of work. Put your own work criteria into words as clues for checking differences in assumptions with the other person.
Judgment Design®
Check that the conditions for restarting are in placeRead explanationClose explanation+
Consider whom to ask about unanswered matters, the time available tomorrow, and the first task. Adjusting your plan to the other person’s schedule and workload and sharing work criteria also supports decisions. Consider whether you can compare what you left today with what you actually do tomorrow.
How might you put this into words at work? See a book example across three roles →
Choose another situation ↑Throughout the day
Looking ahead to the people your work reaches
136 habits
Imagining others' work
“Why did they not use it?”
Day overview ↑Record the other person's reaction as something that happened.
People who note the other person's reaction as a fact rather than immediately judging it tend to have 31% fewer clarification exchanges in the next interaction, on average.
Consider the situation behind the other person's words and actions.
People who consider the situation before replying when something in the other person's words or actions feels wrong tend to give 33% fewer additional explanations afterward, on average.
Reply with the other person's next explanation or decision in mind.
People who imagine those beyond the person they are replying to tend to receive 34% fewer repeat checks afterward, on average.
Note what would be useful to communicate in the next interaction.
People who note what would be useful to communicate next after dealing with someone tend to spend 29% less time preparing for the next interaction, on average.
Note the questions that arise when you imagine the other person's situation.
People who note what to ask next tend to take 33% less time to understand the other person's difficulty in the next conversation, on average.
Put an assumption you took for granted into one sentence.
Behavioral observations show that people who put their own assumptions into one sentence before speaking when emotions arise tend to have repeated conflicts with the same person 27% less often, on average.
Understand this scene’s actions through three perspectives
The response “they did not use it” does not explain why. Imagining the circumstances of users and people further along changes what you reconsider in the plan and what you want to check with them.
Art Thinking
Expand from a response into questions you can checkRead explanationClose explanation+
Record the other person’s response and imagine its background and the people they will interact with next. Use this to explore the plan’s value. Put unease and taken-for-granted assumptions into words, and note what to say and ask. Develop imagination into questions to check together rather than fixing it as an answer.
Logical Sensemaking®
Separate observation and imagination and leave clues for updating understandingRead explanationClose explanation+
Distinguish actual responses, imagined circumstances, and your assumptions. Consider the work beyond the immediate contact, then note your next main point and question. Compare these with what later dialogue reveals to keep updating your understanding of the people who use the plan.
Judgment Design®
Connect recorded questions with checks and the next choiceRead explanationClose explanation+
Beyond recording responses and questions, consider whether the planner has time and contact to check with those involved. Include effects on people further along and your own assumptions as decision material. Choose the next response and create a chance to revisit what comes back, as conditions for learning through the work.
How might you put this into words at work? See a book example across three roles →
Choose another situation ↑See the day from another role
Try your chosen action, then decide what comes next.
Check the response after trying it, then choose the action your work needs now.
After trying it, choose from your current situation.
Reflect on the other person’s response and how the work progressedDid you ask for action or for a decision?
Choose the description closest to your situation to find a habit to use next.
Choose from other work situations
Check the data and why this may help
Why this action may help
Some unfinished work can move forward through further action; other work needs someone's decision first. Seeing the difference helps you choose whether to resume it yourself or ask for a decision.
See the observations for this habit ↑Analysis by Request Co., Ltd.
Move between three perspectives as you examine the work.
As new things become clear, revisit the aim, your understanding of the work, and the conditions for making a judgment.
An example from Planning
Users and implementers respond differently to a tentative idea.
Art Thinking
Reconsider what to aim for.
Explore useful possibilities not yet noticed through users’ work and how they use the prototype.
See how this perspective works
Develop the plan’s questions and form through observing users and implementers.
Read a work situation through this perspective
Read the detailed explanation (in Japanese) ↗Logical Sensemaking®
Reconsider what happened and what it means.
Compare trial records with the people’s accounts to reconsider where the idea itself or the implementation conditions create difficulties.
See how this perspective works
Compare people’s views with the actual situation to update your understanding of the purpose and assumptions.
Read a work situation through this perspective
Read the detailed explanation (in Japanese) ↗Judgment Design®
Carry judgment experience into the next task.
Arrange the scope, timing, materials, and consultation for a trial so the planner can choose how to test it and learn from users and implementers.
See how this perspective works
Create conditions to compare and choose ideas, then learn for the next plan from responses after implementation.
Read a work situation through this perspective
Read the detailed explanation (in Japanese) ↗Choose, act, and observe the other person’s responseCheck how the tentative idea was used and what was left unused.
↶Revisit the question, your understanding, and the conditions for judgment
Research and practice behind this page.
We bring theory and academic research into dialogue with behavioral records and experience gathered through workplace practice.
Theory and academic research
Behavioral science ·Experiential learning · Adult learning · Self-determination theory · Self-efficacy
Our behavioral records and workplace practice
980 companies · 338,000 people
The cumulative scale of our work through training, workplace support and behavioral observation.
Organizational-Andragogy®
A framework for developing a sense of purpose, ways of seeing work and judgment through experience.
Bringing everyday actions and workplace records together.
Behavioral observation
What people communicated first and what they checked in reports, consultations and meetings.
1-on-1s and dialogue
What they were trying to decide, where they were uncertain and what advice they needed.
Work logs and reflection
How they understood events, what they noticed and what they intended to change next.
Workplace practice tasks
The small action they tried, the other person’s response and what they did afterward.
Following real work over time.
Initiatives involving continuing observation and testing in practice
A more extensive initiative
7yearsContinuing the work and following leaders’ activityWho we have observed
Those observed include leadership candidates recognized for their results within their departments, and people already leading departments.
What we examine in real work
We compare patterns among people who did and did not take a particular action in the same kind of work situation, and organize the differences observed in how work progressed.
What was uncertain or stalled before the work moved forward.
What they put into a sentence, separated out or shared first.
Differences in clarification exchanges, rework, reminders, repeat explanations and time before starting.
Use the response to inform the next work decision.
Five perspectives and their connection to habits
Try one action in your own work, then turn the experience into your next action. We consider this process through five perspectives.
in your work
response
Deepen your perspective through external research.
Explore academic research across eight fields.
67 publications on action, thinking and values. Choose a field to read what the research found and how it connects to this page.