Learning from the Past: Family Federation's Future Growth

December 19, 2025

John Sato "Why did many of the projects promoted globally by True Parents fail?" This is a question that many members have likely asked themselves at least once.

Recently, when I posed this pressing question to a local church leader, the answer I received was: "The cause is that we couldn't unite." Even granting that there may be some truth to this, the answer struck me as lacking any serious thought. The causes of the past failures are not simple issues that could have been resolved merely by "uniting." Does it imply that church members failed to unite with the leaders? Does it imply that the members did not unite with True Parents? Or does it imply that the methods used by the leaders trying to unite the members were not sufficient or incorrect?

Most organizational and social problems are complex, requiring extensive discussion and complex solutions. If the Family Federation truly aims for "World Peace" as its name suggests, we must become a "professional group" capable of leading the resolution of all social problems. At the same time, unless we sincerely address our internal organizational issues, there will be no growth.

Human history is truly a "history of problem-solving." Thousands of years ago, agricultural technology developed to solve food shortages (the Neolithic Revolution); political structures like democracy and the separation of powers emerged to resolve the evils of authoritarianism. Laws, too, have been enacted to solve various social problems. The wisdom of humanity, spanning thousands of years, has been accumulated in the forms of technology, law, social structure, and educational systems.

Specifically, how should organizational and social problems be resolved? It begins with honest and thorough recognition of the current situation and clarifying the problems.

In this essay, I would like to propose a path for FFWPU's future growth through specific examples of problem-solving, ranging from daily business processes to national-level structural reform.

Standardized Processes: Approaches to Solving Organizational Problems

For about ten years (2004–2013), I worked for major companies in the chemical, medical, and aerospace industries in the US. In these industries, internal processes (standard operating procedures) are emphasized extremely heavily. This is not only to win in market competition but also because there are strict government regulations to protect consumers and investors.

When I worked as a systems engineer in the aerospace industry, in addition to developing systems for fighter jets and commercial aircraft, I was involved in building a database for internal processes called "Standard Work." This database integrates engineering know-how and lessons from failures accumulated by the company over more than 100 years. Since the aerospace industry is involved in national defense, there was a strict rule: "Actions not prescribed in the existing processes are prohibited in principle. If the actions are necessary, they must be registered as a new process before execution."

This database of standard processes was the company's core intangible asset, allowing even young, inexperienced engineers to contribute to world-class projects by following it.

However, as technology and needs change, new problems continuously arise. This is where the process of "Continuous Improvement," represented by PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act), functions. When a problem is identified, instead of blaming a specific individual, we focus on identifying the environment that allowed the individual to commit the error. We investigate the root cause of the problem using methods like the “5 Whys” and "fishbone." Then, we design a process to ensure the problem does not recur, regardless of who is in charge. This new process is finally shared with all employees to prevent future problems.

Companies competing globally continue to transform themselves by repeating this cycle of problem-solving and improvement daily, accumulating the solutions to various problems in the form of standardized processes.

Internal Self-Cleansing: The Ombudsman System

Another effective system of solving organizational problems I experienced at a US company is the "Ombudsman" (internal reporting channel), which served as a self-monitoring system within the organization.

One day, I received a call from the legal department at our US headquarters, pointing out a suspicion that I had inappropriately sent confidential documents to an affiliated company in Japan via email. In reality, one of my colleagues who was cc'd on the email noticed that I had sent "export-controlled" data without going through the formal information export control process and reported it. Being on the side of the US company, sending the data to a Japanese company across the internet constituted an illegal export of sensitive information across the national border.

Fortunately, by following the legal department's instructions—asking the recipient to delete the data and submit an affidavit, and then resending it through the formal procedure—the issue was resolved quickly.

Humans are not robots. No matter how careful we are, human error can occur, and judgment can be swayed by emotions or circumstances. That is why, while trusting in individuals is important, a system that encourages correct action is necessary. The Ombudsman system functions as an independent, neutral third party and is essential for objectively monitoring and resolving internal issues. (Note: While the installation of an Ombudsman in companies is mainly a governance decision, internal reporting channels are mandatory in certain industries.)

Particularly in large international cross-cultural organizations, the existence of such internal whistleblowing systems (a self-monitoring system) is considered extremely effective for maintaining organizational health.

Legal Solutions: The Enron Scandal and the SOX Act

Laws and regulations are also the crystallization of humanity's problem-solving wisdom. A prime example is the "Enron Scandal" and the subsequent enactment of the "SOX Act" (Sarbanes-Oxley Act).

In the early 2000s, executives at Enron, a major US energy company, committed massive accounting fraud and stock manipulation. While the executives sold off their own stock at high prices just before the investigation, many employees and investors lost their assets and jobs.

To prevent the recurrence of such large-scale damage, the SOX Act was enacted in 2002. It mandated the establishment of compliance systems for US companies, including strengthening the independence of external auditors and imposing severe penalties for falsifying financial reports.

Around the same period as the SOX Act was enacted, ethics education regarding "Conflict of Interest" became common in companies across America, and as a young engineer, I underwent the training several times. "Conflict of Interest" refers to a situation where public judgment becomes influenced due to personal gain.

For example, when a company purchases parts from another company, a purchasing agent usually analyzes quality, delivery time, and price to select the supplier objectively. Naturally, the suppliers want to make a good impression on the purchasing agent, but if they send personal gifts to the agent to influence the fair selection process, it becomes an ethical issue of "Conflict of Interest."

Therefore, at the US company where I worked, there were detailed internal regulations to prevent this, such as prohibiting employees from paying for a meal if it cost more than $30 when dining with purchasing agents from other companies.

It is also common these days where board of directors of US companies enact "Conflict of Interest Policies" to prevent self-interests to affect crucial internal decisions.

Triggered by the "failure" of Enron, US companies raised their ethical awareness, leaving a healthier corporate environment for future generations. Laws and institutions are not carved in stone; they are constantly evolving to solve problems.

Structural Problems: The Constitution of the United States

In recent years, many may lament that "the government lacks problem-solving ability," but humanity has occasionally solved historical structural problems through drastic means such as "revolution" or "nation-building." The founding of the United States is the foremost example.

After the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the United States initially operated under the "Articles of Confederation." However, because the central government's authority was too weak, many problems arose, such as tariff disputes between states and the chaotic issuance of currencies. Driven by a sense of crisis that the nation would fail, a Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia in 1787, establishing the current US Constitution and the system of separation of powers.

It can be said that the US Constitution was designed to solve three major historical problems:

1. Prevention of Dictatorship and Authoritarianism: To prevent the concentration of power in specific individuals or groups, the division of powers and "Checks and Balances" were introduced through the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

   
   

2. Balance between Central and Local Power: The authority of the federal government and the autonomy of the states were defined to maintain balance.

   
   

3. Avoidance of Mob Rule: To prevent politics from running out of control due to temporary public sentiment, the terms of office for Congress were devised. The "House of Representatives," sensitive to the voice of the people, has a two-year term, while the "Senate," which requires a long-term perspective, has a six-year term.

The US Constitution is only about 4,500 words long, but it condenses the historical lessons and wisdom of humanity. Such structural reform requires the humility to mutually acknowledge failures and the patience to exhaust discussion. While independence movements in South America did not lead to a unified nation, the United States was established likely because the Founding Fathers possessed high intellect and virtue.

Future Growth of the Family Federation

Humanity has continuously solved problems and has accumulated vast wisdom to arrive at the current state of civilization. So, what "accumulation of problem-solving" does the Family Federation have after 70 years since its founding? Is there not a reality where we must admit we are declining rather than growing? I believe the future of the Family Federation, whether it will wither or grow, rests heavily on its problem-solving ability.

True Father identified the root cause of human suffering as "Original Sin" and presented solutions such as lineage conversion and the Principle of Restoration. However, we must not rest on the teaching of True Parents alone. We must solve countless practical and specific problems ourselves. The Family Federation should inherit the will of True Parents and grow into a professional group that leads the resolution of the world's problems.

To do this, "Continuous Improvement" is necessary at all levels of the organization.

Above all, we must look at problems honestly. Instead of blaming specific individuals, we must view issues as problems of regulation, process, and structure. And we must not avoid constructive criticism or debate. If we suppress criticism, we lose the ability to judge the current situation and to define the problems accurately.

Once the problems are identified clearly, we should take concrete actions: developing organizational regulations, thorough ethics education, establishing internal reporting channels, introducing continuous improvement processes, and accepting external audits. We must not be arrogant, thinking, "We are chosen people, so we do not need to learn from other organizations."

I believe structural reform is particularly important. Many problems arise from structure. Just as the Founding Fathers of the United States engaged in thorough debate at its founding, the Family Federation should also bring together leaders and experts to discuss the ideal structure of the organization, no matter how many months it takes. I am not speaking of a simple change in leadership personnel; I am speaking of fundamental changes to how leadership operates and how authority is shared within the organization. Learning from past wisdom and leaving an organizational structure we can be proud of for the next generation is the greatest responsibility required of us today.