Ends and Means

My career is short, but it has taken me through a few companies, and the differences in how each one runs itself have been an education.

Broadly, I’ve seen two types. One condenses the company’s purpose into a short mission statement, lays down only the minimum rules, and leaves the methods to you. The other never quite defines the purpose, deploys plenty of rules instead, and controls how each person acts.

The former, as a member, gives you a clear compass and plenty of room for your own judgment. It’s easy to live in, and the sense of contributing comes readily — it did wonders for my mental health. For the people running it, though, it must have been a nightmare. Any measure that could be read as straying from the mission drew merciless objections, even from rank-and-file members, and updating the mission to match a changing business environment would set off a firestorm among employees who had made it their anchor. Room to think for yourself suits self-driven people, but of course not everyone is one, so depending on who you hire it can become a hard place to work.

The latter, conversely, is easy to run — and easy to live in, even for people with little initiative. But with the purpose left vague, spontaneous ideas and action rarely emerge, and I often saw the rules themselves become the goal. If the people at the top are functioning soundly, obedient members are the rational choice; I accept that as one way to run a company.

Both types, perhaps at the demands of the times, were drifting toward the middle. The mission-driven type, pressed for more efficient operations, began fencing off top-down the areas where autonomy used to roam. The rule-driven type, as competition intensified, showed signs of wanting bottom-up ideas grounded in the field. But wanting to change and being able to change are different problems. Clamping down can be forced through, in the extreme. Growing autonomy and letting it flourish requires both the individuals and the organization to change — and in Japan, where you can’t simply swap out the people, that looked especially hard.

My own preference is clear: I’m comfortable in an organization with an explicit purpose and rational decisions. Like a game — it’s obvious what clears the stage, and the fewer irrational rules binding the way there, the lighter my mind.

Lately I keep remembering something I once saw on Twitter: in RPGs, defeating the Demon King becomes the goal, when the real goal is supposed to be bringing peace to the world.

But you want to slay the Demon King anyway, don’t you. I get it.