A "Win-Win" administration that aims for the success of both people working in the company and the business itself is similar to the well-known phrase "companies are people." It is said that the people make the company. This means that company members who have advanced, in our mindset, from laborers, to personnel and now human assets support the growth of a company. However, when I became involved in local management overseas, I learned that management could only be successful if it was "management based on the premise that company members quit." This understanding particularly developed when I confronted the accepted thinking that changing jobs is normal, as in Singapore where people are constantly job-hopping.
  The preconceptions we have do not hold weight overseas. Simultaneously, I feel that the thinking that "companies are people" contained a blind spot in accepted thinking that we did not notice.

  It is true that Japanese companies have treated company members well. However, in what way? What types of people? Although this is a slight exaggeration, the management style until now expected each company member to approach work to the extent of sacrificing his/her own life. The company members who fulfilled these expectations were treated well and called the treasures of the company.
  Consequently, company members who go home "because they have a date" even though the company needs them become outlaws within the company and are excluded from the loop. This is based on the feeling that corporate performance will deteriorate if preference is given to individual manners of living and individual lives. But I do not simply say that this is wrong.
  In the era where one didn't have sufficient clothing or couldn't find a comfortable place to sleep, everyone worked hard just to survive. But, that era was that era and to work was equal to living. This is because the feeling of living overlapped with work.
  Now, awareness that has been passed down over the years has been conveniently interpreted and is used to protect the organization. The awareness that naturally interprets the success of the company as the sacrifice of the individual, "Win-Lose," has solidified this thinking even further. That is what I believe. However, workplaces where the company members can fulfill their sense of living will become an important workplace for them. The performance of each individual will be exceptional if the stage is such that company members can do what they want. In other words, a light needs to be shined on the thinking of "companies are people" from different angles.

  As I have written, at Kato Spring we often use the phrases "be the president," "be the department manager," "be the section manager" or "be a father." This practice began with something I noticed when a certain father made a comment to me. He said, "You are a father even if you do nothing. What is important is not that you are a father but that you "be a father."
  Each individual has many different roles in life. I, myself, am a father, a husband and the president of a company. However, reflecting on this, this is no more than from the standpoint of what I am. I have often wondered how I have related with those around me.
  Every so often I send information and messages to my children using the Internet. I put every effort into talking about family and our town with my wife. In fact, these daily qualities of "being a father" and "being a husband" are not unrelated to "being the president." It can be said that these activities inadvertently influence a balanced perspective of life and administrative views.
  I personally always work to attain a balanced form of administration. In order to catch changes sensitively, one must constantly refine one's sense of balance. I believe that when my perceptions are no longer effective is when I will resign from "being the president."

  We are in an era in which we must recognize that changes will not come after taking steps, rather they will arrive in front of us suddenly. Therefore, it is very important to respond to such changes quickly. I believe that to "be the president" is to implement measures in advance in a detailed manner.
  However, this doesn't apply to just the post of president. The work styles of each department manager being a department manager and the section managers being section managers, marketing staff being marketing staff and such keenly refine the perceptions of the company itself.
  The premise of this is the heightening of the company's level of freedom. In addition, an environment must be formed in which unneeded noise doesn't interfere with the transmission and reception of information, and this is something that hasn't been included in the framework of educating managers within a company.
  In every company, individuals often confront incidents that make them wonder, "Is the manager being the manager or is he being a new Katoite?" In other words, one should not do what someone else should do. If the department manager is really doing what a department manager should, the level of freedom possessed by his subordinates will increase as the range of the authority conveyed to them increases. It is then that our individual sensitivities and balance start to be further refined, and this is the work style of the future that I am aiming for.

  For example, what does it mean to "be a specialist?" A specialist must have a skill level that can't be accomplished by automatic machine or computer. Just because someone knows what has happened in the world or is in the process of happening doesn't make that person a specialist. Is the specialist really "being a specialist" in line with the success scenario of the business? An analysis of conditions using this perspective sometimes reveals that we are still a step or two behind.
  Doing something that a successful company has done may mean that you will not fail, but neither does it mean that you will be successful. Whether or not a company can break through this and generate success that causes it to lead others depends, in my opinion, on the "level of freedom of its specialists."

  In the past, I heard a story about when Tokyo Disneyland was founded that I found very interesting. If I remember correctly, in the planning stage they selected ten specialists, gave them lots of money and had them travel the world. When they traveled and found something really unique, they decided not to use it. The reason that they traveled the world was not to "do something they discovered had 'already been done.'" They had many concepts that they had been imagining, and as they found out those that already existed, they would dispose of those. Disneyland was born from the idea of making something that hadn't been seen or heard about anywhere else in the world.
  Tokyo Disneyland continues to enjoy a high number of visitors, at a pace of around 17 million a year (17.459 million people in fiscal 1998). This equates to about 14 or 15 of every 100 Japanese visiting each year. This is the top figure within the Disneyland group; and this thorough pursuit of newness at the founding has been inherited in its stance of introducing 300-400 new products each year.
  When specialists are allowed to "be specialists," they are able to create things of magnificent value. In order to gain this value, it is indispensable to create a system with an optimum freedom at each level within the company starting from "being a company member" and continuing on to "being the president."