Organizations drift within a sense of balance. They are flexible structures supported by the sense of balance of humans.
  Earlier I wrote that "(superior's support) + (company member ability) = 100" is not desirable. The best means is to create a "gap" midway in which company members challenge themselves. This gap is the key to maintaining a balance and is the portion that allows individuals to demonstrate the autonomy that will draw out their abilities.
  Although Fig. C describes the process of developing leadership, there is no change in the evaluations and instructions for considering the freedom mentioned before. A sense of balance must be utilized, as the ability of company members concerning each area needs to be analyzed rather than checking and judging the comprehensive aspect. I would also like associate managers to conduct the same concerning their subordinates. They should consider, in addition to the comprehensive aspect, where that person is positioned in each area and the support arrangement.
  When undergoing drastic administrative reformation, a very important point is reform of the attitude in the middle to upper-level aged company members that have management titles. By this, I mean explaining what it means to "be a director" or to "be an associate manager" to people from a generation in which becoming a director and becoming a division manager means everything.
  We are conducting this in the following manner.

  One method is the transformation of line department managers into staff. These are staff members at factories that don't manage associate managers but are directly involved in resolving problems being faced by the group of associates. This system also deals with special tasks such as providing support to projects for a set period of time.
  On the other hand, one of the primary responsibilities for a director is the performance of the division he or she is in charge of. However, if the director only focuses on today, it can't be said in the true sense of the word, that he or she has "been a director." To phrase this differently, in the end, the mask of titles, work histories and authority does not prove anything to individuals who have different values and philosophies of life.
  As was shown in the example of Singapore, company members will not move just because an order is given from the president or the head office. However, the reason that they began to accept me, who came from Japan, was because they began to approve of the humanity of a single person, Yuichi Kato. I don't believe this concept changes whether in Japan or Singapore.

  The first point necessary for a director is to have a solid opinion about company management, to have wits and to act upon them. The second is humanity. No matter how intelligent an individual is, there is no meaning if subordinates will not follow. This is because humanity is the key to subordinates following you. Logic does not matter.
  There is no problem if subordinates feel that the superior has a different personality and that they think differently. In fact, it may be better as work can be done with a strong sense of unity. When subordinates realize that, even though a superior may say something strange occasionally, the direction is not wrong, then they will accept higher leadership and follow. This is very important.
  The third point is administrative sense. For example, at some time in a project's implementation, the performance in the area under the supervision of a specific superior may drop. However, if the company feels that the future of said project is bright, the superior must be able to make statements that surpass his/her appearance and divisional barriers and act based on the belief that it will be beneficial for the entire company - these qualities are needed. For that instant, some company members may express a dislike for said individual, but in the long run, awareness emerges among the company members that the decision at that time made the company stronger. It is this type of respectable leadership that is effective throughout the world.
  To "be a director" means to determine what to do on your own.

  I was asked the following question, which I am often asked, during an interview with a monthly magazine: "What are the requirements for a middle manager in terms of your feelings of the qualities a manager should have?" I answered, "I feel that there is no need for them. This is because I am asking staff members not to be middle managers but to be leaders. Within this structure there are no section managers or chiefs. We are aiming for people to operate on their own or within units that have only leaders and subordinates."
  Within the associates system, the use of terms like "middle," which are used to define ambiguous positions, has been kept to a minimum.
  There is no responsibility or authority within ambiguous instructions and control that are sandwiched by superiors and subordinates.
  The delivery of information on a route that doesn't function not only damages the company but also ruins those in "middle management."
  The question is how to heighten the "Win-Win" dynamism that connects the individual successes of each company member with the success of company businesses. There is no guide for the issues facing Kato Spring.