The amazing level of job-hopping that I encountered in Singapore was the opportunity that led me to a remarkably broad level of management fieldwork. The difference in systems and gaps in customs and values were a true culture shock for me. Although I was earnestly doing my best, things just weren't meshing with the people of Singapore. If I didn't tackle the problem immediately, the line and office would both stop functioning. I keenly felt daily a distance and gap with Japan that was totally different from my time in America. I slowly began to perceive this over time.
  For example, in the case of hydroelectric power generation, the realities of Japan and Singapore are vastly different both in quality and the level, and an intense shift of facts generates an immeasurable amount of information energy. In other words, no matter how much valid and valuable information there is, nothing is generated unless there is movement.

  I believe it was Maslow who said, "When one holds a hammer, various problems appear to be nails." When one holds the hammer of Japanese-style management, he/she immediately starts hitting the heads of labor and personnel issues whether in Singapore or anywhere else. The nails are hammered down and management feels it has resolved the problem. Although this may be an oversimplification, it seems like there was such an aspect involved.

"Administration based on the premise that company members quit"
  Using the above example, this is the ideology that "One should not quickly hit a nail on the head when it is protruding." Actually, at the time, I had not yet been truly introduced to Japanese-style management. Or possibly it is more appropriate to say that I didn't have that kind of hammer.
  My days were definitely full of anxiety when confronted by this surprising reality in such a frame of mind. My concept of option management, which originated from this experience, is not something that can be explained as such and such a style or such and such a doctrine. If a phrase could be used to describe it, it would be the "Kato Way."

  The phrase "merit system" is often heard. But how do you evaluate merit? What is the receptacle? How does it work? When such questions are considered, it is realized that several aspects are inappropriate for the management of Kato Spring.
  First, I believe that there is no meaning in believing that life is better by moving ahead of others. Additionally, there is no meaning if the rules of survival of the fittest are simply brought into the company. Today the seniority system is collapsing quickly, but I don't think that the seniority system is bad.
  Kato Spring is working to create a framework where people work vibrantly together and grow further by having four personnel do the work of three (a concept that is described later). The new graduates entering our company will never pass their seniors if the seniors keep growing. Our company gives each company member the chance and proper instruction to foster their growth. This results in older people having greater abilities and responsibility for more difficult work. This is only natural if personnel are trained properly and everyone develops together. Although this may appear to be a type of seniority system to a third party, in reality it is simply the outcome of our system. My goal is a form of management such as this, a "seniority system by results."

  Considering this, we return to the previous subject of staff satisfaction. But it is very important to remember that each company member must develop a sense of satisfaction concerning his or her work to truly work hard in earnest.
  On the other hand, there are many types of people (i.e., different people are made for different jobs). For example, there are people born to be leaders and people who aren't, people who like to take the lead and pull everyone along, people who would rather be in the field and people who like to play the backup role, like being second-in-command. But the conventional Japanese corporate organization is not built for this. If an individual is a good marketer or generates increased sales, he or she will be promoted to chief, section manager and then branch manager.
  What does the company say on such an occasion? The company says, "You are now a manager. You must now leave the work at the site up to your subordinates and start exercising leadership worthy of your position as a section manager." In other words, they do not select people as leaders because they appear to have leadership quality. The company orders an individual into leadership because he or she is a sales specialist, and then expects good results from the decision. This is strange.
  This action results in the company forcing an individual with the ability to generate sales to leave his/her position when promoted to a leadership position even though he/she is not meant for the leadership role. This is obviously an illogical arrangement. However, even deemed illogical, it has become a force of habit as it is a system implemented by predecessors, and is therefore resistant to change. In other words, inaction occurs because the company won't reconsider a system it has used for many years because it is easy to control as is.
  Additionally, the paths of leaders and specialists, which should be clearly divided and laid out for company members, are not. Consequently, if a company member slides off the conventional path of promotion, he or she quickly begins to think that he or she is of little worth, and so do other personnel around them.
  We have just begun a movement to reform this personnel system and corporate culture.