The regional VP stares at the CRM. Four key accounts in Tokyo are marked “In Progress,” all tagged with the same optimistic update: The client is considering our proposal positively. Back at HQ, “positive consideration” triggers a resource allocation sequence. Engineering hours are booked, localized assets are drafted, and the quarterly forecast is adjusted upward. The VP remembers the meeting, the nodding, the attentive notes, the lead stakeholder saying, “Maemuki ni kento shimasu.” It translates literally as “We will consider this in a forward-looking manner.”
Six months later, the deal hasn’t moved. There is no rejection to appeal, no competitor win to analyze, and no feedback to iterate upon. There is only a polite, ongoing silence. The VP assumes the product wasn’t “Japanese” enough or the pricing was off.
In reality, the deal died the moment that phrase was uttered. The global team didn’t miss a cultural nuance; they missed a systemic defensive maneuver designed to protect internal harmony by deferring a “no” they weren’t authorized to give.
This is not a culture issue. This is a Risk Diffusion Failure.
When a Japanese stakeholder tells a global provider they will “consider it positively,” they are rarely signaling intent to purchase. They are signaling that the cost of an immediate, transparent rejection is higher than the cost of a prolonged, ambiguous delay.
In the operating reality of a Japanese corporate hierarchy, a flat “no” to a global partner creates friction. Friction requires a justification. Justification requires a definitive internal stance. By saying “maybe” (in its many professional disguises), the local stakeholder successfully kicks the decision into the long grass of the consensus-building machine (ringi).
The mechanism at play here is Consensus as Liability Migration.
A definitive “no” is an individual act of authority. A “positive consideration” that eventually turns into a “non-decision” is a collective outcome. If the project never happens because it “timed out” or “lost momentum,” no single manager is responsible for the rejection. The system rejected it, not the person.
Global leaders mistake this for a communication gap. It is actually a structural feature of a system that prioritizes the avoidance of individual accountability over the speed of market execution.
The Operational Pivot: Weaponizing the “System”
The error most global leaders make is attempting to solve a “Maybe” with more product value. If they haven’t said yes, we send more case studies. If they haven’t said yes, we offer a discount.
This is a waste of resources. The stakeholder isn’t stuck on the value of your brand; they are stuck on the personal risk of sponsoring it.
To collapse the “Maybe” Trap, you must stop asking for a decision and start asking for the Blocker Profile. Instead of asking, “What do you think of the proposal?” which invites a polite exit, you must ask:
“In the ringi process for a project of this scale, what is the most common reason a proposal like this is stalled or rejected by your Finance or IT departments?”
This shift does two things:
* It grants them safety: You aren’t asking for their opinion (high risk). You are asking for their observation of the system (low risk).
* It identifies the real buyer: It forces them to name the internal department that actually holds the veto power.
The solution is to stop treating the Japanese stakeholder as a Decision Maker and start treating them as an Internal Consultant. Your job is no longer to sell to the person in the room. Your job is to provide the specific document or certification that allows that person to deflect the risk onto a policy or a global standard.
If they cannot or will not tell you exactly why the system will reject you, they are not your champion, they are your exit ramp.
The Bottom Line
The “Maybe” Trap costs you more than just deals; it steals your time and erodes your authority at HQ. In Japan, “Positive Consideration” is the professional dialect for a soft exit. If you cannot get a specific “No” or a specific “Technical Requirement,” you must pull your resources immediately.
Over to You
Where in your current pipeline are you mistaking “polite engagement” for “commercial momentum”?
