Building Better Systems Through Personnel Transfers

Plan

When people are transferred, they make an effort to understand the systems of their new organization, while the receiving organization makes an effort to explain them. Through this mutual exchange, systems evolve and improve. “A High Performance Team (HPT) uses personnel transfers as an opportunity to evolve its systems from the ground up,” says Damian McKinney.

Organizations that rely only on individual know-how or unspoken understanding tend to fall into confusion when personnel changes occur.

Strong organizations are those that voluntarily create and refine systems through the very process of overcoming that confusion.

Deep Dive

In the “HPT Exercise,” which applies military academy team exercises to business, personnel transfers are carried out frequently. Nearly twenty years ago, when I participated as a trainee myself, I was suddenly subjected to—rather, experienced—one of these transfers. While several teams were fully engaged in solving their assigned missions, abrupt announcements would be made:

“Person A, move to Team 1 immediately!”
“Person B, move to Team 2 immediately!”

There was no room for debate.

Right after the transfers, everyone would complain:

“You’ve got to be kidding me! We finally reached the point where we could work together instinctively!”

But then the newly transferred Person A would ask:

“So, what exactly should I be doing here?”

At that point, the team would regain its composure.

“Hang on a second. We’ve all been operating on pure spirit and intuition. Let’s organize this properly.”

And for the sake of Person A, the team would begin verbalizing and explaining its methods. Strangely enough, performance would soon surpass the level before the transfer.

“Explaining it to A clarified our system.”
“We’ve moved beyond relying on passion alone — now the performance is reproducible.”

The entire team could feel the improvement. Meanwhile, Damian McKinney would simply stand there smiling quietly.

“Heh heh heh.”

Once people became accustomed to the process, Person A would eventually begin making suggestions such as:

“I think we could incorporate part of the approach used by my previous team.”

By then, the systems had already been verbalized and clarified, so improvements accelerated rapidly. Naturally, team performance increased even further, and members would celebrate together with high-fives. Damian, once again, would silently smile:

“Heh heh heh.”

What he was doing was allowing people to experience firsthand how personnel transfers can become catalysts for creating better systems.

After the exercise, I said to Damian:

“Well, you really got us there.”

He replied:

“Heh heh heh. That’s the HPT exercise from officer training school.”

What Damian consistently emphasizes is this:

“Even system-building itself can be delegated.”

Trying to:
“Force headquarters-driven systems onto everyone,” or
“Impose another department’s system across the organization”

is not easy.

Instead, he argues:

“When you delegate authority to the frontline and give people the freedom to think through the systems themselves, team performance improves.”

This corresponds to Level 4 (“Ripple Effect”) in the ASPIRE® assessment framework.

Years ago, at a previous company, I transferred an outstanding sales manager from Osaka to our Tokyo headquarters. During an executive discussion about creating a new organizational structure, someone suggested:

“How about bringing Mr. T to Tokyo headquarters?”

Another executive objected:

“No, he’s indispensable in Osaka.”

But someone else replied:

“If we keep him in Osaka, he’ll just keep criticizing headquarters — and the problem is, he’s usually right, so our initiatives often stall.”

In the end, we decided to transfer him.

Once Mr. T joined the planning division at headquarters, he immediately began contributing exactly as expected.

“I don’t understand the purpose of this initiative. Could you explain it?”
“This approach places too much burden on the frontline. Shouldn’t we consider another method?”

He continuously challenged headquarters staff with practical questions, which greatly improved the realism and precision of headquarters initiatives.

One day I told him:

“Thanks to you, the quality of our planning has improved significantly.”

Mr. T replied:

“The headquarters staff’s ideas are finally being verbalized and turned into real systems. At the same time, I keep telling the Osaka team, ‘Headquarters is responsible for creating the overall framework. Understand that framework, then design the detailed systems yourselves.’”

This reminded me of a conversation I had more than ten years ago with the manager of a professional soccer team.

“The correct approach is to fire a manager after no more than five years,” he said.

“Why?” I asked.

“Because the next manager brings in new ideas and evolves the team’s style of play.”

“But why can’t the same manager continue?”

“Because the players get bored. And eventually, the manager loses his mystique.”

I remember thinking:

(If someone who became the top scorer in the Japan League as a player and later coached both university and professional teams says this, there must be truth in it. After all, most teams really do replace their managers regularly.)

When I combine that insight with Damian’s philosophy, the conclusion becomes clear:

“Use personnel transfers as opportunities to build better systems. And when those systems become stale, trigger the next personnel transfer.”

The performance-driven mindset of the military and professional sports should be highly applicable to the business world as well.