[RCIJ Risk Research] Over Half Repeat Failures in 'Fixed-Race' Decision-Making
A survey of 276 business professionals by RCIJ revealed that 52.3% of organizations with 'fixed-race' (predetermined) decision-making repeat failures. Furthermore, over 98% of managers have kept silent about their concerns.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: April 23, 2026 at 19:00
- 🔍 Collected: April 23, 2026 at 10:31
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: April 24, 2026 at 03:29 (16h 57m after Collected)
The Risk Communication Institute of Japan (Location: Minato-ku, Tokyo, Representative Director: Haruko Osugi, Abbreviation: RCIJ) conducted an 'Awareness Survey on Corporate Groupthink' targeting 276 business professionals. In 2026, a year marked by successive scandals in major companies, there is growing interest in the question: 'Why do organizations full of talented people make bizarre decisions?'
It has been pointed out that the background of corporate scandals and decision-making errors lies not only in individual judgments but in problems stemming from the organizational structure itself. This survey was conducted to clarify the relationship between internal decision-making processes and the resulting failures or PR disasters.
As a result, a more serious reality emerged: not only do 'fixed-race' (predetermined) organizations repeat failures, but in 'top-down' organizations, the failures themselves are not even recognized. Furthermore, managers reported a higher rate than general employees of having 'experienced staying silent despite feeling something was wrong.'
Survey Results Summary:
1 | In 'fixed-race' decision-making, 52.3% responded that they 'failed multiple times.'
In top-down types, 51.0% responded that they 'do not remember failing.'
2 | Experience of 'sontaku' (reading the room/holding back) regarding organizational decisions: 93.6% of general employees and 98.1% of managers responded 'yes.'
3 | Regarding internal objections, about half perceive that they are 'simply ignored.'
■ Survey Result 1: Organizations with 'fixed-race' decision-making repeat failures (52.3%), while 'top-down' organizations don't even recognize failures (51.0%)
Over half repeat failures in 'fixed-race' decision-making—
Analyzing the relationship between the decision-making process and failure experience, 52.3% of respondents in organizations conducting 'fixed-race' decision-making—where conclusions are predetermined—said they 'experienced failures and PR disasters multiple times.'
On the other hand, in 'top-down (decision-reporting type)' organizations where frontline opinions are not reflected, 51.0% answered they 'do not remember failures,' suggesting the possibility that failures themselves are not being recognized.
'Decision-making process' x 'Have there been failures or disasters regarding organizational decisions where you thought 'If only I had stopped it then...'?'
From these results, it became clear that the 'format' of decision-making greatly influences how failures are 'repeated' and 'recognized.'
■ Survey Result 2: 94.5% overall have experience with 'sontaku'. Over 98% of managers stayed silent despite feeling something was wrong with an organizational decision.
When investigating the actual behavior regarding decision-making within organizations, over 90% answered they 'have experience with sontaku.' Among them, one in four answered that they 'often' practice it.
'Have you ever stayed silent out of sontaku despite feeling something was wrong with an organizational decision?'
Furthermore, analyzing the same question by job title:
General employees: 93.6%, Managers: 98.1% answered they 'have experience with sontaku.'
The reality that managers are more likely to 'stay silent even when they feel something is wrong' was brought to light.
'Job Title' x 'Have you ever stayed silent out of sontaku despite feeling something was wrong with an organizational decision?'
■ Survey Result 3: About half of business professionals perceive that 'objections are ignored.'
Regarding how objections are handled in internal meetings:
About half answered that 'they are received as opinions but then ignored,' revealing a reality where internal whistleblowing or issue raising is not functioning sufficiently.
'If you raise an objection or an issue in a meeting, how do you think that person or opinion is treated?'
From this, it became clear that in many organizations, there exists a 'structure where opinions do not affect decision-making' even if they exist.
■ Expert Recommendations (Haruko Osugi, Representative Director, Risk Communication Institute of Japan)
What drew my attention in these survey results is the fact that 'the higher the management level, the more silent they are.'
A sontaku experience rate more than 10 points higher than general employees. I don't think this means managers have weak willpower or are just trying to protect themselves. Caught between expectations from above and responsibility toward subordinates, they judge that 'saying something here won't change the situation.' This is likely the result of accumulating such experiences.
Another concern is that over half answered they 'do not remember failures' in top-down organizations. It's not that they haven't failed, but that incidents pass by without being recognized as failures.
If this continues, neither reflection nor learning occurs. By the time it is noticed, it is thrust upon them from the outside in the form of a PR disaster or scandal.
So, what should be done? We often hear talks about 'increasing psychological safety,' but I feel that alone is difficult. Even if there is an atmosphere of 'it's okay to speak,' if speaking up changes nothing, people will...
It has been pointed out that the background of corporate scandals and decision-making errors lies not only in individual judgments but in problems stemming from the organizational structure itself. This survey was conducted to clarify the relationship between internal decision-making processes and the resulting failures or PR disasters.
As a result, a more serious reality emerged: not only do 'fixed-race' (predetermined) organizations repeat failures, but in 'top-down' organizations, the failures themselves are not even recognized. Furthermore, managers reported a higher rate than general employees of having 'experienced staying silent despite feeling something was wrong.'
Survey Results Summary:
1 | In 'fixed-race' decision-making, 52.3% responded that they 'failed multiple times.'
In top-down types, 51.0% responded that they 'do not remember failing.'
2 | Experience of 'sontaku' (reading the room/holding back) regarding organizational decisions: 93.6% of general employees and 98.1% of managers responded 'yes.'
3 | Regarding internal objections, about half perceive that they are 'simply ignored.'
■ Survey Result 1: Organizations with 'fixed-race' decision-making repeat failures (52.3%), while 'top-down' organizations don't even recognize failures (51.0%)
Over half repeat failures in 'fixed-race' decision-making—
Analyzing the relationship between the decision-making process and failure experience, 52.3% of respondents in organizations conducting 'fixed-race' decision-making—where conclusions are predetermined—said they 'experienced failures and PR disasters multiple times.'
On the other hand, in 'top-down (decision-reporting type)' organizations where frontline opinions are not reflected, 51.0% answered they 'do not remember failures,' suggesting the possibility that failures themselves are not being recognized.
'Decision-making process' x 'Have there been failures or disasters regarding organizational decisions where you thought 'If only I had stopped it then...'?'
From these results, it became clear that the 'format' of decision-making greatly influences how failures are 'repeated' and 'recognized.'
■ Survey Result 2: 94.5% overall have experience with 'sontaku'. Over 98% of managers stayed silent despite feeling something was wrong with an organizational decision.
When investigating the actual behavior regarding decision-making within organizations, over 90% answered they 'have experience with sontaku.' Among them, one in four answered that they 'often' practice it.
'Have you ever stayed silent out of sontaku despite feeling something was wrong with an organizational decision?'
Furthermore, analyzing the same question by job title:
General employees: 93.6%, Managers: 98.1% answered they 'have experience with sontaku.'
The reality that managers are more likely to 'stay silent even when they feel something is wrong' was brought to light.
'Job Title' x 'Have you ever stayed silent out of sontaku despite feeling something was wrong with an organizational decision?'
■ Survey Result 3: About half of business professionals perceive that 'objections are ignored.'
Regarding how objections are handled in internal meetings:
About half answered that 'they are received as opinions but then ignored,' revealing a reality where internal whistleblowing or issue raising is not functioning sufficiently.
'If you raise an objection or an issue in a meeting, how do you think that person or opinion is treated?'
From this, it became clear that in many organizations, there exists a 'structure where opinions do not affect decision-making' even if they exist.
■ Expert Recommendations (Haruko Osugi, Representative Director, Risk Communication Institute of Japan)
What drew my attention in these survey results is the fact that 'the higher the management level, the more silent they are.'
A sontaku experience rate more than 10 points higher than general employees. I don't think this means managers have weak willpower or are just trying to protect themselves. Caught between expectations from above and responsibility toward subordinates, they judge that 'saying something here won't change the situation.' This is likely the result of accumulating such experiences.
Another concern is that over half answered they 'do not remember failures' in top-down organizations. It's not that they haven't failed, but that incidents pass by without being recognized as failures.
If this continues, neither reflection nor learning occurs. By the time it is noticed, it is thrust upon them from the outside in the form of a PR disaster or scandal.
So, what should be done? We often hear talks about 'increasing psychological safety,' but I feel that alone is difficult. Even if there is an atmosphere of 'it's okay to speak,' if speaking up changes nothing, people will...