How to Deal with Misaligned Expectations in Japan

HQ and Japanese clients often don’t speak the same language. The country manager's job? Translate the signals and close the gap.

Welcome to another edition of Japan Business Secrets, where we decode the hidden dynamics of doing business in Japan — beyond the etiquette and surface-level tips.

This time, we’re talking about something that doesn’t get enough attention, yet quietly makes or breaks your success here: managing expectations.

Expectations from your Japanese clients.
Expectations from your global HQ.
And the tightrope you’re walking between the two.

Before we break it down, let me start with a story.

---

The One-Pager That Killed the Deal

I remember this meeting clearly. It was early March, sakura season and the end of the Japanese fiscal year just weeks away, and we were sitting in the boardroom of one of Nippon’s leading infrastructure companies. After a 12-month pilot project — long nights on site, countless technical meetings, and what we thought was a growing rapport — today was the day we’d get the final verdict.

Around the oversized conference table sat the Chief R&D Officer, the tanto kachō (the section manager actually responsible for the evaluation), a young project manager, our trading partner representative, and the four of us — the local team representing a European deep tech startup trying to break into Japan’s transport sector.

The meeting started with polite small talk. Then the kachō shifted the tone and slid a single A4 sheet across the table.

One page.
A table listing the pre-agreed technical specifications. Each item scored.
And at the bottom:
不採用 (Fusaiyō) — Not approved for adoption.

That was it.

Hundreds of hours of groundwork, voluminous documentation, night shifts spent installing our equipment on live railway tracks… all seemingly brushed aside.

Just weeks earlier, our German HQ had run their budget forecasts, projecting seven-figure revenue from Japan over the next two years. The champagne was mentally chilling.

So what had gone wrong?

The Most Important Signal Was the One We Ignored

Very early in the project, the client started asking about a specific feature that would solve a rare but critical problem they were facing — something they didn’t yet have a viable solution for. This, it turns out, was the feature they truly cared about.

But back at HQ, this was misunderstood. Our leadership saw it as a niche use — a “nice-to-have” — and never allocated real resources to tackle the problem. We assumed our product with its core features would be enough to impress. Meanwhile, the Japanese client was patiently waiting for a solution to the one problem they actually wanted us to solve.

There was another signal we missed.

We hadn’t fully anticipated how deep the Japanese client would go in questioning our product’s inner workings. We also hadn’t realized how much our reluctance to disclose know-how — even when justifiable — came across as evasiveness. We thought we were protecting IP. They started to doubt whether we truly understood what we had built.

“Is this startup really up to the challenge?”
”Can this product deliver up to its promise.”
"What’s the logic behind it — and why won’t they explain how it works?"

They didn’t like the black box we were holding. In a market where clients expect suppliers to explain each and every aspect of their products, our silence triggered concern — not about confidentiality, but about competence.

These interpretations made sense. But we didn’t pick up these signals — and we failed to transfer them clearly to our headquarter.

---

The Two Fronts of Expectation Management

Before we unpack the details, here’s a simple way to think about the tension we were caught in — and the crucial role you as a country manager or any Japan team need to play:

On one side: Global HQ wants results fast. Speed, efficiency and revenue are key.
On the other: The Japanese client expects precision, responsiveness, and long-term trust.
In the middle: The Japan team — trying to align the two opposing approaches.

Japanese companies often approach supplier relationships with a level of rigor that surprises even seasoned global executives.

It’s not just about showing that the product works, and maintaining close and trustful relations with your main counterpart. Discussions for the introduction of a new system or software, and the evaluation of a pilot project will go much deeper than that.

1. What Japanese Clients Expect

Here’s what we learned from this engagement — and where we misstepped.

• Technical specifications aren’t just documentation. They reflect what the client has internally aligned on and secured budget for. Ignore or downplay a line item, and you risk derailing the entire relationship. We initially saw some spec points as vague or secondary. In reality, they were core to how the client defined project success.

• Quality isn’t just about the product. Even small irregularities during the pilot raised concern. The client wasn’t just evaluating the product — they were watching how we as a startup reacted when things didn’t go as planned.

• Features had to match exact needs, including the one we hadn’t prioritized. It was in the spec sheet, but we treated it as optional. That assumption proved costly.

• Reliability had to show up in every interaction. Not just in performance data, but in how we handled feedback, follow-ups, and problems. What we said in response to issues mattered more than what we wrote in slide decks.

• And the questions. Detailed, technical, and sometimes repetitive. Our European team saw them as overkill. But for the client, they were proof we took them seriously — and a foundation for trust.

2. HQ’s Expectations: Deliver Sales — Fast

Meanwhile, our headquarters expected a radically different approach:

• Speed: “The pilot’s going great, right? So when do we start implementation?”

• Sales cycles: “Why are they still evaluating? We had lunch with the VP last quarter — they seemed excited.”

• Market fit: “This solution works in Germany and the UK — why are we hearing about ‘missing features’ in Japan now?”

• Product roll-out: “We are a ‘product’ company. If we customize for each individual client, this won’t scale.”

• Commercial readiness: “Can we book revenue in Q3?”

In hindsight, headquarter wasn’t asking the wrong questions. We – the Japan team – had failed to set expectations about what “progress” actually looks like in Japan.

---

Closing the Gap in Expectations

Looking back, the real issue wasn’t HQ’s unrealistic expectations.

We — the Japan team — had avoided confronting the reality ourselves. We hadn’t told HQ clearly enough that our entire approach needed to be adapted for Japan.

There were lofty expectations: fast rollout, large volumes, commercial traction.
But the truth was: if we didn’t win over the technical team first, we couldn’t even start talking about rollouts.

And even if we did, the rollout would take much longer — and start smaller than anyone back home was prepared to accept.

But we didn’t clearly communicate this.

As the Japan team, our job should have been not just to manage the project — but to manage expectations.

To pick up on subtle signals from the client. To interpret what real “interest” and “progress” look like in a Japanese context. To translate that into a timeline that HQ could understand and support. And to manage both sides through the inevitable tensions that come from conflicting priorities.

Because if those expectations are left unmanaged — as the earlier diagram shows — they will create a gap.

And bridging that gap isn’t a side task. It’s the core responsibility of any team charged with building a market in Japan.

Talk soon.

Pascal Gudorf

–Helping you unlock your full potential in Japan