At a big manufacturer, there was an employee who, every time he got a task, kept climbing up the ladder: "Why this workflow?" "Why is the company even in this business?"
On its own, that sounds a bit like a CEO.
Manager: "Please move this data." Employee: "Why do we need to move it?" Manager: "We're replacing the system." Employee: "Why replace it?" Manager: "It's old." Employee: "Then why is the company in this business at all—" Manager: "THE DATA."
To be clear, this is not a transcript. It is a joke version I made up to show the pattern.
But the tension in it is real. If a frontline worker stops to question everything every single time, nothing gets done. And if the people at the top never ask "why?", you end up spending a fortune automating nonsense.
So "why" is not the problem.
The real question is who is asking, who has the power to decide, when the answer is due, and whether anyone actually acts on it afterward.
0. Asking "why are we doing this?" belongs at the top of the process
Business process reengineering (BPR), strategy, investment, new ventures: none of this starts by accepting things as they are.
- Do we actually need this task?
- What are customers really paying for?
- Why does this need 3 levels of approval?
- Before we build software around this process, can we just get rid of the process?
- Why are we still in this business?
These are all fair questions.
Skip them, and "digital transformation" turns into taking a terrible process, putting it in the cloud and running it terribly, only faster.
So "why do we have this workflow?" is not automatically the question of an annoying employee.
It is the kind of question that managers and planners are supposed to ask.
1. But a company is not a philosophy café
What happens next is what matters.
The version that works looks like this:
Why? → look into it → guess → options → decision → action
The version that doesn't:
Why? → well, originally → but really → but then → even deeper → meeting over
Deep thinking is valuable. But if it never turns into something people can use, the company just sees one more thing stuck in the queue.
CEOs ask "why?" too.
The difference is that in the end they have to say things like:
"Stop it." "Put the money here." "Give this team 3 people." "Try it next month."
Sounding like a CEO is not the same as doing a CEO's job.
2. The dismissal case was not "fired for asking too many questions"
This part is important.
In a Tokyo District Court ruling dated August 21, 2025, known as the AGC case, the company reportedly spent about 9 years changing the employee's assignments and duties, giving guidance and offering special support.
The court of first instance upheld the ordinary dismissal, pointing to problems with his ability and fit for the job and to conduct that harmed teamwork.[1][2][3]
A legal commentary also lists other things: not finishing basic tasks by the deadline, blaming others, emotional or aggressive behavior, unexcused absences, verbal abuse of coworkers, posting nonpublic personnel information, and filming or recording without permission.[4]
So it did not go like this:
"He asked what the company is for" → "You're fired."
If it had, that would be a very different story.
Someone's habit of top-level thinking and problems with doing the job, following rules and earning trust are separate things. Look at them separately.
3. "Maybe he'd have thrived in planning" is tempting, but it is not a cure-all
When you see someone like this, it is natural to think:
"Wouldn't strategy or BPR have suited him better?"
And it's true that people who question why a task exists can be very useful in improvement work.
But according to the court, in this case his assignments and duties were changed over about 9 years.[1][3]
So this was not a case of "one bad first placement that the company stubbornly refused to fix."
If the problem is a bad match, a transfer can help a lot.
But if deadlines, trust with colleagues, handling of information, attendance and following instructions are also broken, then renaming the department "Planning" does not reset everything.
Changing jobs is not a "delete save data" button.
4. Winning the argument does not give you the power to decide
This one is funny too.
You can rebut people logically. You can spot the holes in your boss's explanation. You can say, "Isn't that assumption wrong?"
All of that can be real intelligence.
But in an organization,
being able to say the right thing and having the authority to decide what gets done
are two different things.
That doesn't mean a company can fire anyone it likes. Under Article 16 of Japan's Labor Contract Act, a dismissal without objectively reasonable grounds, or one that society would not accept as appropriate, is invalid.[5]
So in the end, the company's decision gets reviewed by a court too.
In this case, the Tokyo District Court at first instance found the dismissal valid.
The employee appealed, and according to the union's announcement, the first hearing at the Tokyo High Court was scheduled for February 2, 2026.[6]
As of October 2, 2026, the reliable public sources we could check did not show a final result of the appeal.
So we do not call this case fully settled.
5. The biggest waste is when good thinking never becomes something you can hand over
"Does this task even make sense?"
Fine so far.
The real waste is when it turns into a discussion that never ends.
These days we have AI.
"Work out what this workflow is for." "List the risks if we scrap it." "Give me 3 options: keep it, change part of it, change all of it." "Show the impact on other departments in a table." "Turn it into a proposal I can explain to my boss in 5 minutes."
Do that, and the same "why?" lands completely differently.
Your boss no longer thinks:
"Here we go again, he's stuck."
but:
"He raised a question and brought options too."
What wins in the AI era is not people who don't think.
It's people who think too much and can turn that thinking into something finished, fast.
6. One small rule to avoid being all talk
If you love asking "why?", give yourself just one rule.
Whenever you raise a question, also bring at least 1 next step.
Don't stop at: "Do we really need this approval step?"
Go on to:
"It may be unnecessary. I'll check the rejection rate for the last 3 months and bring you plans A and B tomorrow."
That alone moves you from philosopher to the person who improves things.
Even better is to run this loop:
- Ask the question.
- Collect the facts.
- Narrow it down to 2 or 3 options.
- Find out who has the power to decide.
- Make your proposal by the deadline.
- Once it's decided, do it.
- Look at the numbers and question it again.
Doubting and following are not enemies.
Doubt before the decision, act after it, and doubt again once you see the results.
7. If working inside an organization really doesn't suit you, you can build your own business
"I just want to decide everything myself."
If that is you, starting your own business is a real option.
Without asking a boss, you can decide:
"Drop this product." "Build something else." "Change the price." "Go after different customers."
That is a lot of freedom.
But your boss doesn't vanish.
Your boss is reborn as the market.
As an employee: Boss: "That's not really work."
After going independent: Market: "Nobody's buying that."
The market judges faster. It doesn't even write you a review. It just quietly notifies you: revenue 0.
So going independent is not just for people who like to think freely.
It's for people who can think, build, put it out there, and change course when it doesn't sell.
8. "You got paid for 9 years, so just move on" is easy to say from the outside
From the outside, it's easy to think:
"9 years at a big company." "Got paid the whole time." "Gained experience." "So just move on to the next one."
But for the person living it, 9 years of belonging, a career, relationships, self-image and a household budget all shake at once.
And it has gone all the way to court.
Telling someone "oh well, next!" from the sidelines is very different from carrying what they stand to lose.
It's fine to laugh at the funny structure of the story, but keep that separate from how heavy it is for the person involved.
Also, you cannot guess someone's state of mind or make a medical diagnosis from public reports of their behavior, and there is no need to.
9. CEO potential shows in how you turn questions into action, not in the question itself
"Why is this company doing this?"
On its own, that does sound like a board meeting question.
But the job of a CEO, an executive or a business head does not end with asking.
They also decide:
- what to stop
- what to keep going
- who takes it on
- how much to spend
- when to decide
- what to change if it fails
So the abilities worth judging are:
spotting problems × deciding × executing × correcting
If you score 100 on spotting problems but 0 on everything else, the company does not move.
And if you never ask "why?" and just obey, improvement is unlikely too.
What you need is the middle ground.
10. Summary: keep the "why", but turn it into something you can hand in
"Why?" "Is this really necessary?" "Can't we change this from the ground up?"
You don't have to give these up.
They matter a lot at the top.
Just put a deadline on each question.
Look into it. Turn it into options. Pass it to the person who decides. Once it's decided, do it. Check the numbers. Question it again.
Do that, and you are not "the annoying why guy" but someone who keeps improvements moving.
And if the basic assumptions of an organization really don't fit you, you can build your own business.
There you can think as freely as you like, but in return the market checks your answers with zero mercy.
Keep your questions free. Hand in the work.
That's all there is to it.
References (6)
- Rodo Shimbun, AGC case (Tokyo District Court, Aug. 21, 2025) rodo.co.jp
- Institute of Labor Development Research, Labor Case Journal No. 168 roudou-kk.co.jp
- JEED, Elder, June 2026 jeed.go.jp
- ALG legal case commentary xn--alg-li9dki71toh.com
- Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, employment contract and dismissal rules mhlw.go.jp
- Union Chiyoda, appeal notice ameblo.jp
