Why "Philosophy" is Needed in Business Today

In today's world of diverse values, companies must go beyond simply providing good products and services. It has become crucial to clearly articulate their purpose and significance within society. Amidst this, a trend spreading in Western business environments and gaining attention in Japan is the incorporation of "philosophy" methodologies into corporate philosophy development and training.

What exactly are "philosophical dialogue" and "philosophical consulting," which adopt philosophy not as mere "ideology" but as a "method"? Yosuke Horikoshi, who conducts research at the University of Tokyo while practicing philosophical dialogue in corporate and educational settings, and Naota Nakamachi, who provides consulting within Dentsu Consulting Inc.'s Corporate Transformation Division, engage in a dialogue. They discuss the methods, effects, and unique value of these approaches.

What is "Philosophical Dialogue," which emphasizes the "attitude" of philosophy rather than its ideas?

Nakamachi: First, could you briefly introduce your current activities, Mr. Horikoshi?

Horikoshi: I originally researched areas called "philosophy of education" and "political philosophy." Currently, I'm also advancing a more practical activity called "philosophical dialogue." While philosophical dialogue is mainly conducted in educational institutions, I'd like to include the "philosophical consulting" I'm doing with companies in this discussion.

This involves a philosophy researcher entering a company and using philosophical attitudes, thinking, and dialogue to provide consulting on matters like corporate philosophy or conduct corporate training.

Nakamachi: Thank you. Could you explain how "philosophical dialogue" and "philosophical consulting" actually take shape, in a way that's easy for first-time listeners to understand?

Horikoshi: When people hear "philosophy," they often think of the kind of ideas found in ethics textbooks. However, what I utilize focuses less on the "philosophical ideas" left by our predecessors and more on the philosophical "attitude" – what I call "philosophical thinking."

Philosophical dialogue is an activity where we extract the philosophical essence from our thinking and talking to explore matters. To briefly explain the method: first, the participants establish a "question" based on a theme. The crucial point here is not just to pose any question, but to formulate a "philosophical question." A philosophical question is one that, based on a particular thing or phenomenon, inquires into its meaning or value. For example, "How can one succeed in their job?" isn't necessarily a philosophical question, but "What is success, fundamentally?" is philosophical.

Next, analyze the words. For instance, by considering the difference between "labor" and "work," the definitions and meanings of each naturally become clear. "Labor" might feel like being forced to do menial tasks, while "work" is somewhat different. Or, consider whether that way of thinking applies to everyone, all the time. In this way, you re-examine the premises, reasons, and criteria for judgment surrounding the theme, getting closer to its essence. It's also good to consider whether there are other concepts related to "labor" and "work," or whether you would quit your job if you won a 100 billion yen lottery. This becomes the essence of engaging in "philosophical dialogue" and "philosophical thinking."

Revisiting corporate philosophy and employee training! The growing demand for philosophy in business settings

Nakamachi: Recently, companies are placing great emphasis on articulating the very "why" – questions like "Why does our company exist?" or "Why is this company indispensable to society?" This is called purpose. Furthermore, a growing number of companies want to reexamine or newly create their purpose. In that sense, it seems companies across Japan, or even worldwide, are facing a situation where they must confront fundamental, philosophical questions. What kinds of consultations do you actually receive from companies, Mr. Horikoshi?

Horikoshi: The requests I receive can be broadly divided into two main types: consulting related to services, products, corporate philosophy, etc., and employee training or individual coaching.

Many requests involve collaborating from a philosophical perspective on a company's mission, vision, purpose, or its core products and services themselves. On the other hand, employee training requests are also frequent. The objectives of these programs vary widely, but one key goal is to cultivate employees' fundamental critical thinking skills—essentially, the ability to question, "Is this really the right approach?" We also frequently hear requests to enhance expressive abilities. Philosophy helps develop the capacity to articulate vague, intuitive feelings into language. Companies seem eager to hone this skill to enable clearer communication and presentations.

Nakamachi: While our company also provides consulting on corporate philosophy and service concepts, some companies specifically request the "philosophical dialogue" approach. In such cases, I assume they feel that while solutions might be difficult to find elsewhere, philosophical dialogue might be well-suited to their company. Mr. Horikoshi, what expectations do you sense these companies have?

Horikoshi: Companies are truly in a phase of trial and error right now. When I visit clients, I see stacks of self-help books and management literature. Yet, while they all sound plausible, something just doesn't click. Frameworks and case studies don't lead to the answers they seek. In this context, I believe the crucial value of philosophical dialogue lies in enabling each individual to think for themselves and participate actively. Whether it's HR personnel or those responsible for selecting purpose, philosophical questions—which don't have a single answer—create space for everyone to participate inclusively. I often sense that companies requesting our services place significant expectations on this very aspect.

By fostering a "culture that allows questions," we can also address organizational cultural challenges.

Nakamachi: When it comes down to it, employees must think for themselves and form their own convictions about their company's core values and fundamental aspects. This is where philosophy, which can be seen as humanity's accumulated "technique of thinking," is being revisited. While the trend of philosophy consulting originated in the West, from a philosopher's perspective, what challenges do you see Japanese companies facing?

Horikoshi: In philosophical dialogue, the freedom to think freely, including questioning the "fundamentals," is crucial. I believe the same applies within companies—freely raising questions and thinking deeply is vital. Yet clients often ask me, "What does it mean to think freely?" Meanwhile, high turnover among young employees is a challenge for nearly every company. Looking at these situations together, it seems companies want young people to think flexibly, voice opinions, and drive innovation, but they haven't managed to create environments where free thinking and expression are truly possible.

When people can think and speak philosophically, the very form of communication changes fundamentally. It fosters a culture where questioning is accepted – where you can say, "Is that really true?" Philosophy also involves contemplating fundamental questions like "Why do this work, with these people, at this company?" and finding meaning in it. Properly addressing this contributes to employee motivation. I believe fostering such a culture offers a more direct approach to tackling issues like turnover than conducting formal interviews by managers.

Nakamachi: That's a crucial point. Opportunities to discuss "fundamentals" within companies—like "Is this product truly necessary?" or "Is our current work approach really appropriate?"—remain very rare. Innovation, I believe, means overturning assumptions that have become accepted compromises within familiar frameworks. To achieve that, creating opportunities to ask "Is this even necessary in the first place?" is essential.

However, especially in Japanese companies, the barrier to discussing fundamental issues seems high. The major hurdle lies in establishing a shared understanding that it's acceptable to freely pose questions and discuss them, and furthermore, that such topics can be discussed flatly, transcending job titles and age, right?

Horikoshi: If we can overcome that, we can say we've cleared almost everything we want to achieve through philosophical dialogue (laughs). There are cases within companies where people who have worked together for years have no idea what values the other holds.

But I think that's somewhat unavoidable. Philosophical communication requires deliberately creating a space for it. Certainly, if a project is progressing smoothly, it's not a problem if you don't know the mindset or values of the person sitting next to you. However, knowing them often leads to better outcomes. For example, from an HR perspective, understanding employees' perspectives should lead to more appropriate reassignments and department transfers.

The power of the "space" created by "philosophical dialogue" as the first step toward honest, rational discussion

Nakamachi: What you just mentioned strikes me as the core point. The advantage for companies lies in leveraging the power of the "philosophical dialogue" setting—a kind of event—to ultimately facilitate honest yet rational discussions. Mr. Horikoshi, in your experience, could you share an example of a project where the kind of discussion we just outlined was successfully implemented?

Horikoshi: One major corporation dedicates substantial time monthly to conduct philosophy dialogues with younger employees, such as those in their third or fifth year. Building a culture where employees feel comfortable voicing their questions, as this company has done, is achieved through sustained dialogue. Taking the time to properly instruct participants on effective dialogue techniques before starting significantly improves the efficiency of deepening the conversation.

As a result, we've received truly diverse feedback, such as "I realized I knew absolutely nothing about the person sitting next to me" and "I understood how strange communication within the company had been until now," demonstrating its effectiveness. From the HR perspective, we've heard comments like, "It feels like the awareness of community building is very advanced."

Questions seem to possess the power to encompass those they are posed to. Especially philosophical questions, lacking definitive answers, transcend distinctions between veterans and newcomers, superiors and subordinates, or who might be considered more knowledgeable. Progress requires everyone's input, and collective thinking leads to deeper insights. Representatives from this company mentioned that by continuing these efforts, they're fostering motivation around the idea that "we are building the very foundation of our company" and effectively cultivating community.

It's okay if things remain "fuzzy." What matters is sharing the same "question" with the participants.

Nakamachi: For companies interested in "philosophical dialogue" after reading this article, could you share any points to note or advice for actually conducting dialogues? Or perhaps suggest good starting points?

Horikoshi: First, I'd like you to consider philosophy from the perspective of "thinking" and "dialogue." As mentioned at the beginning, philosophical dialogue emphasizes a philosophical attitude and way of thinking. I believe the "knowledge" philosophy generates isn't something fixed in place; it's constantly fluid, something we ourselves reshape. In other words, absolute "knowledge" doesn't exist; it's something living, "residing" within the process of us repeatedly rebuilding and reconstructing it.

When practicing philosophical dialogue, it's beneficial to have someone from outside the company participate. It's crucial to have someone with a different perspective observe the organization and the philosophical dialogue objectively. Having an outsider act as a buffer can make it easier to discuss things that were difficult to say or think about. And I think starting with dialogue among peers of the same generation lowers the barrier. If they're managers, start with managers first. Then, gradually mix in different generations step by step; this makes the conversation feel much more comfortable.

Nakamachi: Indeed, having an outsider present seems beneficial as it provides an opportunity to recognize biases in our own perspectives. Regarding the realm of ideas and principles, I feel the "questions" that emerge through repeated reconsideration are crucial. In business settings, we often tend to seek quick "answers," but those answers are predicated on underlying "questions." The key point is first recognizing that thinking through the "questions" is what ultimately leads to the answers.

Horikoshi: In philosophical dialogue, we can't definitively state a single correct answer to a question. Ultimately, we never truly know if it's the right answer. That doesn't mean thinking about such questions is meaningless. I believe the problems we face in life are always like this.

What's far more important is realizing that the real significance lies in participating in that moment and collectively generating the "question" with everyone present. Rather, the answer itself is secondary. The goal is to gain experience thinking from the core through the dialogic process, deepening understanding of work and others. If a lingering sense of unease remains about the question, it leads to continued reflection on that issue. And thinking about it together with people from the same organization is the most crucial point.