Book 29. A person who is a manager. What is its purpose? It is the purpose of management to keep asking this question.

 Hello. β (beta). This time, I would like to write about the profession of manager.

When you think of a manager, you may think of a middle manager, but management can be said to be the president's job. Furthermore, it is the job of a manager. The most important thing in my job is to observe management.

When it comes to management, it seems that it is normal for middle managers to give instructions and subordinates to act according to instructions. In order for a subordinate to be a subordinate, a boss must be a boss. In order for a subordinate to surpass his subordinates, he must surpass his superiors and exceed his superiors' instructions.

The boss's accurate instructions motivate and motivate the subordinates, but the boss must take responsibility for the actions of the subordinates. The actions of subordinates must reflect the instructions of their superiors, but they must also be able to act beyond subordinates. Only when a subordinate quits a subordinate can he succeed as a manager.

However, raising subordinates is difficult, and the will of the boss must be reflected. Otherwise, they will lead their subordinates to a difference in direction, a dichotomy, and even self-destruction. Raising subordinates means going beyond subordinates, beyond superiors, and increasing autonomy to the point where they understand the boss's wishes.

In order for a subordinate to be a subordinate, he must become the boss's right-hand man, the boss's shield, and the boss's spear, and bring him to a state where there is no contradiction. If I were the boss, the instructions I give to my subordinates are a general agreement, not a detailed process.

A rough agreement is enough to communicate with subordinates on a regular basis, and more importantly, there is a relationship of trust, but I don't think a boss who ends at a detailed process will never be a big success. It can be said that it is the duty of the boss to fulfill his responsibilities in an emergency, just as the boss is the boss, without imposing responsibility on the subordinates.

I wrote that when a subordinate quits a subordinate, it is a great achievement as a manager, but I think one theme can be what happens to the subordinate or the boss when the boss quits the boss. The boss cannot surpass the boss.

Because the boss is only the boss. Beyond that, when you quit your boss, your organization will be automated. Autonomous forces work in the organization, and the organization becomes an organization beyond the organization. Even without a boss, the organization is formed into a state of activation.

One of the points of achievement as a boss is when you quit your boss and automate the organization. That is one of the points to achieve, and it is something that every good manager has tried. What goes beyond that point and now goes beyond that is to create a new organization.

When you automate your organization beyond your boss, the new challenge will be to shape a new organization. This emphasis is the original job of the manager, and it can be said that it is the reason for the existence of the manager to be a manager.

If I were to become a manager, it would be said that management is to shape a new culture, civilization, or world, and to be a part of the wheel of it. The reason why I think this part is important is that as we move into a new era, society will become more sophisticated and shape a new era.

Each organization does not exist from the beginning, but when an organization is established, its dynamics lead to an automated mechanism. On the basis of an automated system without a founder and manager, the dynamics of the founder and manager will turn in a new direction to create a new organization.

And if the new organization is automated, it is the original role of the manager to steer the foundation and training of the new organization. The role of the manager is never to make the organization bigger. It is the role of executives and bureaucracy to make the organization bigger.

Beyond that, managers create something out of nothing. It can be said that the creation of new things is the responsibility of the manager, whether it is an organization or a product. Originally, the manager should be the boss.

When a subordinate quits a subordinate, the subordinate becomes the boss. When the subordinate becomes a boss, he needs to quit his boss. It is the responsibility of the boss to give autonomy to his subordinates, transfer responsibilities, and form an autonomous organization.

If you get to that point, leaving the rest to the younger generation and moving to a new organization is proof of your existence as a manager. I think that a manager is a manager. In order to become a manager beyond a manager, the main focus is on mastering the realm of creation beyond several processes.

A person who is a manager. What is the purpose? There is no chance of winning for managers who do not see their purpose or for the organization. What is the purpose? It is the purpose of management to keep asking this question. And that's it. Thank you for your growth. It was β.

Book 28. For emerging companies like those on social media, most of their value lies in their brand, making it an interesting strategy to sell them at a price far below their actual share price.

Hello, this is Beta. The current investment environment (March 27, 2026) is excellent, with the Nikkei Stock Average rising and reaching a new all-time high. My previous article suggested that the investment environment might be outdated, but this article will discuss what you should invest in.

When you start a company and take it public, you can aim for profits from selling the shares by making them available on the market. If you own a majority of the shares, you have the right to dissolve the company through voting rights, and you can make decisions regarding the disposal of assets.

I know that in traditional business practices, owning a majority of shares and circulating a large number of those shares on the market allows for significant capital gains, or profits from selling. In this act of holding shares, the company as an asset definitely exists, and then the goodwill of the brand is added to it.

Owning shares in a company means you own a portion of that company's assets through your share allocation. For example, if a company has a building worth 10 billion yen, that asset is included in the market capitalization of the company's shares.

Now, consider the case of an industrial company going public. The company's owner owns a majority of the shares and releases the remaining shares onto the market. In return, they receive a large profit from the sale.

This raises a question. What if the shares traded on this market were sold not at their market value, but at a price far below half of that value? In the case of an industrial company, the portion sold at a price lower than the market value probably doesn't include much goodwill, which is the brand, but rather is likely compensated for by fixed assets such as factories, equipment, and buildings.

In other words, in industrial companies with little goodwill, selling shares at a price lower than the actual share price is treated the same as transferring actual fixed assets to the buyer free of charge.

On the other hand, for companies with high goodwill, such as IT companies, selling shares at a price lower than the actual share price may attract many buyers. This is because the portion of the shares sold at a price far below the actual share price is mostly goodwill and brand value.

For a popular company, if the goodwill portion—for example, the brand value is 10 billion yen and fixed assets such as buildings are also 10 billion yen—it would be interesting to try selling all of the shares, which have a market capitalization of 20 billion yen, for 10 billion yen instead of 20 billion yen.

For emerging companies like those in the social media space industry, the majority of their value lies in their brand and goodwill, so selling their shares at a price far below their actual share price would be an interesting experiment. For example, if you own 100% of the shares and sell 70% for next to nothing, the shares will be offered at a price far below their actual share price, which should attract many buyers.

If they retained their 30%, and the stock price surged by more than 3.3 times, their total shareholding would exceed the original market capitalization. Even the 70% of shares they sold for next to nothing would generate significant surplus profits if the proceeds from the sale were considered part of the company's cash flow. For a social media company, that 70% of shares might be almost entirely brand value. (To be continued)