The leaders of the global development organization speak. Money Forward Internationalization: Where We Are and Where We're Going

＜日本語の記事はこちら＞

The two have led development organizations at major global companies in Japan and abroad.

First of all, could you tell us about your careers to date?

Nire: I have rich experience, but being an engineering manager has been the root of my career. I am a person who keeps thinking about how to make the environment for engineers in my organization more energetic and easier to work in.

Looking back at the companies I have worked for, NTT is a domestic organization, Microsoft is a major foreign company, ACCESS and GREE are Japanese ventures, and then I went to Condé Nast Japan and Fast Retailing, which may seem like an unusual career. But I intentionally go back and forth between Japanese and foreign companies. Each has its characteristics and good points, and I thought it would be interesting to bring them together and make the most of them.

As for managing a global development organization, I most recently supervised a 100-person organization at Fast Retailing, where 80% of the members were English speakers. The mission was to develop EC sites for UNIQLO and GU worldwide by absorbing requests from offices around the globe. Although the team was located in Japan, it was a fairly global environment.

At that time, Fast Retailing was also in the process of becoming a global company, with bases in various countries but functioning as One Team. Now, it has also split its headquarters function to New York. So, some of my colleagues are in New York.

Hoshino: At my first workplace, I was a full-stack engineer, doing everything from planning, sales, design, product direction, construction and testing, and post-release implementation to maintenance and operation.

From there, I planned and developed my subscription model service, but I became saddened by the fact that the number of users was very small due to the business model of a congressional search system. I wanted to create a service that could be used by more people and benefit the world, and that's when I came across Rakuten. That was in 2003 when there were about 40 development members.

After joining the company, I started with Rakuten Point and Rakuten Blog development, and then I was entrusted with business division management. When the English language shift started, and we acquired an American company, I was told, "You are the only one who can speak English and manage engineers." And suddenly I had to go to New York (laughs).

I worked in New York and San Francisco for about four years, and after returning to Japan, I became responsible for the core services development, including Rakuten Ichiba and Rakuten Travel, and was eventually appointed CTO of a 2,000-person development organization.

Money Forward aims to go global while struggling with growing pains. So, we want to pursue a better working environment for engineers.

Why did you change jobs and choose Money Forward, even though you worked for a major global company?

Nirei: The number one reason was that I wanted to make it easier for engineers to work in an organization.

In my previous job, the mainstay of the business was apparel, so the in-house system played a sub role in supporting that mainstay. Compared to a company focusing on IT, creating a comfortable working environment for engineers is inevitably a lower priority.

I had a vague idea of the culture of Money Forward when I heard that several people from GREE were active in the company. And I thought it must be an organization where engineers are highly motivated and proactive.

From there, I spoke with VPoE Shibuya and CTO Nakade, who shared their sense of current issues with me. They said they wanted to increase the global ratio of development members, and while each business division was able to run on its own, the organization as a whole was moving at a disparate pace, so they wanted to promote horizontal cooperation. And I felt that I could contribute to it.

At GREE, I experienced being a cross-functional PM in a 100-person development team that had become disjointed and required restructuring. As for globalization, from my experience, I have seen history come full circle in 10 years, and somehow, all companies go through a similar 10-year growth process and roadmap. Therefore, I thought I could suggest the next step to Money Forward, which is currently experiencing growing pains due to rapid organizational expansion and also wants to accelerate globalization.

He left the organization he loved for 20 years to look for new challenges. To convey a globalization mindset to Money Forward.

How about you, Mr. Hoshino? It was a big decision for you to leave Rakuten, where you had worked for 20 years.

Hoshino: Yes, I joined Rakuten when I was 30 and retired when I was 50, so I spent my entire 30s and 40s at Rakuten. I love Rakuten, and it has been a very productive 20 years.

But at the same time, I felt that I had already done what I needed to do at Rakuten, and I couldn't think of many new challenges. I can imagine that if I stayed at Rakuten, I would continue to rise in the ranks, but at the same time, I had a sense of crisis.

I'm only 50 now, so I have market value as a human resource, but that won't be the case if I continue into my late 50s. What if, in a few years, I had no choice but to hang on to Rakuten and start to crush the budding new young talent to protect my position? I didn't want such a future.

The deciding factor in choosing Money Forward was similar to Nire-san's. I have been with Rakuten as its development organization grew from 40 to 2,000 people, so I could imagine the growing pains Money Forward was facing and thought I could contribute here. With globalization, the attention is on English-nization, but the language is just one small part of the problem. It is much more difficult yet essential to change the mindset of managers so they would not assume that what is conventional for Japanese people is the same for the whole world.

Of course, I don't believe that my experience at Rakuten is the only correct answer, so I am interested to see how far this know-how I have can take us.

Actually, there was another company whose mission and business I could relate to, but it was still a small organization. I can contribute to an organization with perhaps 100 or more engineers. If it is programming, there are people who are better at it than I am, so I think my value is in the area of growing the organization and taking control. In that sense, I think the timing was good.

It is different from any organization I have ever been in. Seeking to create an English-nization approach unique to Money Forward.

What did you think of Money Forward after you joined?

Hoshino: First of all, as far as globalization is concerned, it is genuinely interesting because it differs from the organizations I have been in.

Nirei: I agree. It's different from the organizations I was in, as well.

Hoshino: For example, at Rakuten, all employees were 100% English-speaking from the beginning. On the other hand, Money Forward is partially converting to English, starting with the engineers. The Rakuten format is less complicated, but it remains to be seen who will ultimately settle on the better form. We learn a lot as we discuss things like how to use interpretation.

Nire: I believe that there is a way to globalize that suits Money Forward.

I have had experience with top-down organizations, but Money Forward is not one, so the same methods do not match.

Also, from a slightly different perspective, it seems that Money Forward has about 20,000 registered Slack emojis, and when you want to say "affirmation," for example, the defaults are only "OK" and "Thumbs up," but there are multiple variations of just "OK". I think this is part of Money Forward's culture. Even if you are just giving an "affirmation," you are trying to convey detail and nuance to the other person. To put it another way, how difficult would it be for such a company to go global?

It would be easier if a clear answer existed for the company: 0 or 1, yes or no. However, in an environment with people of different cultures and mentalities, we can not simply say, "Well, let's switch to English today," and solve this challenge without destroying this unique warm atmosphere. I find this part fascinating.

I feel the frustration of bottom-up and the power of "FUN" at the same time.

Hoshino: Rakuten is also top-down, which is easier for management. With clear deadlines, it is easier to plan.

The Money Forward approach is frustrating, to say the least, from a management perspective. If there is no end in sight, you ask yourself, "What am I going to do?"

However, in retrospect, I believe that the top-down approach has resulted in a speedy shift but has also produced some people who have come to dislike English. At Money Forward, I get the sense that more and more people like English, and I wonder, "Which is faster in terms of fundamental English-nization?" It is something I'm watching with great interest.

In fact, both of you (i.e., the interviewers) just now said you have to study English with a positive disposition. That is actually a great thing.

Nire: Recently, I witnessed the HR Solutions Department's surprising speed at increasing their TOEIC scores.

Before, most employees had scored less than 500, but within six months, the ratio reversed, with the majority scoring more than 700 TOEIC points. Of course, some have always been good at English and have improved, but there are also PdMs who were not very confident in their language ability and now find themselves telling jokes in English. The management is also taking measures to ensure that everyone views the opportunities to speak English at work positively, and the fundamental power of FUN that sends a message telling you to get better at what you like is very effective.

We have also talked about how, in an organization that integrates production and sales, when there are sales, PdM, designers, front-end engineers, and back-end engineers, the PdM in the middle must also strengthen their English skills. At least we need to create a gradation, or the English-nization will not succeed after all. I think it is better to promote English-nization in a spreading wave.

Next, we need to have a fundamental discussion. I plan to give them more and more opportunities to gain more experience.

Are there any issues you would like to work on in the future?

Nire: I guess it would be to create a place where we can discuss organizational and management issues and have everyone have the mindset of being a party to it. It is something I have often discussed with Mr. Hoshino.

In terms of communication, there is a tremendous gap between speaking one-sidedly in a presentation and discussing, which is a different level of difficulty in English. And at Money Forward, many members have yet to reach the level needed for discussions.

At present, English-nization has progressed the most in meetings within Money Forward Vietnam, while business members in Japan speak mainly in Japanese. Imagine there is a gradation in between, and right in the middle, there is a meeting that discusses organizational issues. In fact, I recently proposed to convert this middle meeting into English with simultaneous interpretation, but it is still on hold because it is too early to do so. If we convert such a high-context discussion of issues to English, its pace would inevitably get slower. And it will be impossible to sustain an hour of intense debate.

The English ability expressed by a TOEIC score is one thing, but having a direct discussion and saying what you want to say, even if the English is a little rough, is another. I think what is needed is more opportunities.

When I left NTT and joined Microsoft, a foreign company, I was also afraid of conference calls in English. I used to think: "I can't do it anymore. I want to escape. Don't talk to me." But I adapted as I was given various opportunities and thrown into meetings.

At Fast Retailing, I was PMO for a team of several hundred members from India, and naturally, we had important discussions, but at first, I struggled to understand accented English and worried if I would make it. But I guess you get used to things when you do them a lot.

So, we are thinking of trying different ways of doing things, such as letting those who seem to be able to do it handle it more and more or bringing in interpreters.

What we need is "internationalization" rather than "English-nization". Toward a diverse and fair organization

Hoshino: We should distinguish whether we want to promote internationalization or English-nization when we globalize. Nowadays, we tend to focus on English-nization, but I believe internationalization is critical.

Internationalization is realizing that what is natural for Japanese people is not so for others, as I mentioned earlier. You can not expect perfect harmony.

We need to steadily build up by communicating through text, clarifying roles and responsibilities, knowing how to be considerate of each other, and so on. A truly global organization is fair in its diversity, not concerned about nationality, and does not treat Japanese or non-Japanese people differently.

That is why the problem is not the ability to speak English. Because if needed, you can request interpretation. Of course, the speed and performance might drop if you rely on interpretation, and an English-speaking person might produce better results. But I think that's fine. If you turn that into motivation, you will naturally want to study English. It will also give you more psychological security, helping you improve your language skills.

Nire: In that sense, Microsoft was quite advanced 20 years ago. Nowadays, things like diversity and inclusion are commonplace. In those days, it was an e-mail culture, not a chat culture, and when you saw a person's name, even if it was tempting to ask about their nationality or gender, you were not allowed to mention any of that. It was all perceived as harassment.

On the other hand, they have been trained to see the substance behind a person and their statements. We need to do the same things but in a Money Forward way. Not in a top-down style that gives directions on what constitutes harassment, but working as One Team without worrying about non-essential things, adopting a collaborative approach, and internationalizing naturally.

Hoshino: If that happens, even these topics of globalization will stop appearing. I believe that is when Money Forward will become a global company.

What is wrong with this organization? Demonstrate rigor to mature as a development organization.

Hoshino: From the organizational management perspective, I felt troubled for about six months after I joined the company.

At Money Forward, members do extremely little reporting to managers. So, I could not help thinking: "What is wrong with this organization? How does it run? Maybe I don't fit in."

Nirei: I agree. I've also never seen an organization like this before. It is not commonplace.

Hoshino: Yes, that's right. But I thought, "All right, I understand that this organization is different from the previous ones. Let's not start with negativity." So I took a closer look. And it turned out that the organization does work, but it is not always working out. Gradually, I began to think that it is very comfortable to be a manager if I don't have to check the progress in detail and pay attention to it, and the members can do everything themselves.

But, to jump ahead a bit, let's say there are 40 people in the management team at Money Forward, and right now, there are only a few engineers among them. I still would like about 40% of the board members to be from tech, and I believe that will happen eventually.

It will inevitably create even more opportunities for engineers to properly aggregate and report information to Mr. Tsuji, the CEO, for further discussion. In our current state, it is impossible to start doing proper reporting in a day, so I reaffirmed the need for such skills that serve as the basis of the organization. Then, I felt I had no choice but to promote the skills, and I consciously began creating opportunities to do so.

Nire: It's that progress meeting where Mr. Hoshino gives a few pointers to everyone's reports, right?

Hoshino: Yes. It's that meeting where I keep saying things like, "Write it down so I can understand it better." I was ready to be the unlikable one (laughs).

Because it's boring, isn't it? Tell me about your schedule or report properly. But I still think it is important, and as I said before, it is necessary when moving up to a higher layer.

If these systems and the skills of each individual are improved, we can adopt advanced measures. And once the foundation has been laid, we could get together and have fun talks about architecture.

Nirei: It is important. Under the current structure, the managers keep track of all Slack channels. What was a piece of cake for a company of 100 people becomes a huge burden when there are 1,000 and becomes impossible when there are 3,000 people.

At this scale, we need someone who can properly compile the information along the way.

Hoshino: I believe that is the correct delegation of authority.

There is only so much that an individual can do, and even if you think you have a good grasp of the situation, there are times when you may overlook something when you are in a bad mood, have a health problem, or have a personal concern. If you can't build a system that can guarantee 100%, then it's not management, and the manager's time is wasted. Let's create a balanced system.

We want people who can discuss chaos from the ground up and want to compete with the world with a uniquely Japanese culture.

What kind of people would you like to come to Money Forward?

Nire: First of all, you must be someone who enjoys chaos.

Specifically, since we are in a phase where the organization is changing rapidly, including globalization, I would prefer someone who can build from the ground up rather than someone who wants a clear definition of their duties.

For example, "Is it essential to separate Japanese and non-Japanese in this situation? Is it an appropriate consideration at this point?" The good thing about Money Forward is that we can have these discussions.

It doesn't matter if your English is still a bit rusty. We want people who can have essential discussions, like "Why in the first place?"

And we look for people with ambition. People who can devise a plan and act on it.

Hoshino: I welcome people who want to convey the goodness of Japan to the world.

One of the reasons I chose Money Forward over other companies was that I felt it was very Japanese. It would be interesting to update this Japanese-like culture into one that could be competitive around the globe.

I am not trying to incite nationalism and say that Japan is the best, but I believe that to break into the world, we must maintain our own identity rather than imitating America, Europe, or China. We are a Japanese company, so we can only create an identity capable of competing with the rest of the world based on Japanese qualities. And we want people who think there is value in it to come.

It took 100 years for Japan to become the world leader in the automotive industry. And now, it has been 30 years since the Internet first appeared. I don't want to lose to my predecessors, so if I can accomplish in about 50 years what they accomplished in 100 years, that would be cool.

And to achieve that, we do not have to limit our team to Japanese people. I want people from all over the world to come and grow while creating a good culture.

Interview by Asami Fukuda（Money Forward Technical Public Relations）
Interview and text and Photos by Mika Tsutoyama (Money Forward Recruiting and Public Relations)
English text checked by Botkhoeva Valentina（Global People Partners）