A company with tens of thousands of employees may say, "We are still a venture company." From the outside, it is already a large corporation of sufficient size. However, within the organization, the entrepreneurial spirit that has continued since its founding is spoken of as part of their identity.

This is not simply a matter of failing to correctly recognize the size of a company. The word "venture" may represent desirable behavior or an organizational self-narrative, rather than being a classification based on corporate size.

However, it is necessary to consider separately how an organization describes itself and what kind of decision-making structures people who work there actually experience.

The person who founded it, and the person who joined the completed system.

For the person who founded it, that company was actually a venture.

From a place where nothing existed, I created work, established rules, gathered people, and grew the company through trial and error. For someone with that experience, "venture" may mean more about the self-narrative of "creating it ourselves" than simply the size of the company.

On the other hand, people who joined the company after it had already grown have not experienced the founding period. When they join, there are already evaluation systems, budgets, legal affairs, security measures, superiors, and even those above their superiors.

Even within the same company, there is a difference in experience regarding the company between "the person who created the company" and "the person who entered an already established system."

For those who remember the company's founding period, the current company appears as a continuation of their own challenges. However, for people who joined later, the company appears from the beginning as a system that surrounds them. This difference in experience is one reason why discrepancies arise between an organization's self-perception and employees' actual experiences.

People who drive organizations and people who move within organizations.

Depending on the position, the company's image also changes.

When someone in a higher position says, "Let's do this," it can trigger changes in the budget and personnel. To that person, the company appears as a place where they can "think for themselves and take action."

If a general employee makes the same proposal, it may require consultation with superiors, coordination with other departments, securing a budget, and confirmation of legal and security aspects. For that person, the company is not an entity that can be freely operated by their own will, but rather an environment where they must operate while meeting certain conditions.

Then, those in higher positions may spread their own experiences throughout the organization and perceive that "anyone can think and act independently within this company." However, the actual options available and resources usable are not the same depending on one's position.

There are studies that suggest that in situations where one holds power, it becomes difficult to incorporate the perspectives of others, and there is a tendency to overestimate how much information one shares with others. However, this does not explain the personalities of all executives or superiors. What I want to confirm is not whether a person is good or bad, but rather the possibility that different organizational experiences can be gained depending on the position held.

"Can you move?" is replaced with "Do you have the will to move?".

It is not unnatural for a company to ask its employees to have ownership and initiative. The problem is whether they are given the decision-making power, information, budget, time, and tolerance for failure that come with that responsibility.

If only responsibility is passed down, while decision-making power remains at the top, employees cannot move freely. Being cautious and considering evaluations for failures or complex approval processes can be seen not as a lack of motivation, but as a reasonable adaptation to the system.

However, from the perspective of upper management, this caution may be perceived as "recent employees are passive" or "lacking in entrepreneurial spirit."

At that time, what was originally a question about whether someone "has the authority to go to the site" shifts into an internal question of "whether the employee has the motivation to act."

Furthermore, even the voices of employees saying "This company is no longer a venture" are interpreted as "evidence that the entrepreneurial spirit has been lost," which strengthens dissenting opinions and serves as material for reinforcing the organization's self-perception. This makes it difficult to review the current structure.

Of course, we cannot definitively say that actual companies are always in such a state. The ideals stated by companies, general organizational research, and the realities experienced by individual employees must be verified through separate sources.

The self-image of being a venture company can also become a goal for solving problems.

On the other hand, the self-image that "our company is still a venture" does not necessarily always hide reality.

Company A aims to operate like the "world's largest startup" even after becoming a large corporation. At the same time, they officially stated that they have collected examples of bureaucratic procedures from employees and implemented numerous changes based on those findings.

From this example, it is understood that the self-image of being a venture company and the awareness of bureaucratization are not mutually exclusive. There are times when the self-image obscures problems, but there are also times when it is used as a goal to reform the current structure.

The difference is whether they are actually examining and changing their decision-making structure to align with the meaning of the word "venture," rather than simply calling themselves a venture.

It is not necessarily a good idea to eliminate all bureaucracy.

Large companies need systems to protect quality, laws, safety, and security. It is not appropriate to view all bureaucracy and control as bad things and simply try to return to a state like the early days of the company.

The important thing is to distinguish between different types of decisions.

It is not necessary to evaluate small experiments that can be easily reverted even if they fail, and major decisions that could lead to accidents or legal violations, with the same weight. Similarly, stable operations and work exploring new possibilities require different mechanisms.

Instead of returning the entire company to its founding stage, we should design which areas can have decision-making authority delegated to the on-site teams. This is more practical than repeatedly using abstract terms like "venture spirit."

See the path of decision making, not just words.

When diagnosing an organization, simply asking "Are we a venture company?" is not sufficient.

For example, you can check the following points:

• How many days does it take from proposal to execution?
• How many people are required for approval?
• Who has the final decision-making authority and veto power?
• Has the necessary information and budget been provided to the site?
• What is the scope of "small failures" that can be treated as learning opportunities?
• Is there a balance between the responsibilities expected of employees and the actual authority given to them?

Before asking employees to "regain a venture spirit," it is necessary to consider "where to create a structure that allows for venturing."

It is unnecessary to deny an organization's self-narrative. However, it can be verified repeatedly whether that narrative aligns with the current decision-making structure.

Instead of proving that we are a venture company with words, we create an environment where necessary people can move within the range they need. Only with this structure can the spirit of a venture company be manifested not as a slogan to evaluate employees' hearts, but as the organization's actions.