The real problem with the Samsung report is not vocabulary or form

The real problem with the Samsung report is not vocabulary or form

There's a lot of talk about the Samsung report, and the group leaders don't know what Gojo means in "boiling OOO complaints," so correct it. Honestly, I think exaggeration is too much. If an executive in that age group doesn't know the meaning of the Chinese character, it's hard to become an executive in Samsung. In fact, that doesn't happen from the standpoint of having played computer games with Mijeon for more than five years.

And even though Samsung's report is frankly difficult and difficult to make, I believe it has contributed to the establishment of a somewhat efficient communication method. I have learned a lot by communicating directly with the manager and executive levels, and I have learned many skills that can be used anywhere. The real problem with Samsung's reports is that the content in them is often meaningless, not the form, and the problem with the content reaches the problem of executive personnel when going back.

Inefficiency caused by the head's lack of knowledge of the practice occurs frequently not only in Samsung Electronics, a technology organization, but also in the group's investment sector, which is fundamentally a problem of personnel principles that allow executives with little experience in the sector to work in rotation, and when the executives enter a new sector, they need to dilute their style to some extent and accept the style of the sector, but there is a problem that such education is insufficient in the private sector.

For example, let's say that an organization that runs a stock fund. If so, the organization's top priority is 'yield', and it's not about matching the number to zero in the table reporting the rate of return. Even though the table is not a financial statement.

This is due to the fact that, from the standpoint of managing dozens of funds, it is difficult and inefficient to melt the daily market rate of return in line with the accounting rate. Even if some funds invest in the same country, other funds may report by removing the exchange rate of return according to the needs of the company, even if they invest in that standard price. As a result, minute discrepancies in numbers always occur for the purpose of 'reporting'.

However, when an executive who is not familiar with the practice comes in, he only focuses on dropping it to a hundred number of zero. This person does not know how to generate profits in this sector, how it relates to market conditions, and how different logic works for each cell of Excel according to each connection.

As a result, since the executive cannot report the complex details to higher executives, he naturally finds and avoids corners that will not be found fault, which eventually leads to an obsession with dropping micro-number. This has nothing to do with the ability of an executive. It can be avoided if talent is placed in the right place, or at least educated properly.

On the other hand, there is one more problem caused by this personnel policy, which is that practitioners are mobilized to solve unnecessary questions of executives and consume their capabilities.

This is the case in many Samsung sectors, but in the executive personnel season, the main job has to be done for a month or two. I don't know about the case of electronic semiconductors where factories run all the time, but in the case of a sector where everything is stored in servers, it is just an annual event that the deputy managers are consumed to solve the questions of new executives.

However, the problem is that most of these questions are not very important to the core of the business. As mentioned above, it is likely that these questions are from higher-ranking executives, and in the end, everything has to be solved in order not to catch the 'book'. Goal-oriented employees have no choice but to get tired of these consumable tasks in a busy day-to-day period of profitability.

Actually, all these noises have been silenced by a typical top-down logic in Korean conglomerates: "We can't help it because it's an organization, we do it because it's work." Honestly, however, this logic has long become a sour one that only losers boast about in this day and age. For an organization to instruct its employees to do its job, it must be able to explain exactly what it means for its performance and development, but no one at the Korean chaebol explains it. They often don't even ask for understanding.

Therefore, the last choice for talented people to make is quitting if they do these things for a long time. I'm not accusing those who stay and adapt to the organization of incompetence. It's a dry fact that if tangible and intangible incentives are not explained, the proportion of those who leave is much greater now than in the past.

Therefore, even young and energetic talents who come at first with strong will get tired and eventually leave the organization after a day or two of mobilization for such consumptive work.

Of course, if a person belongs to an organization, they can't just do what they like, but they must do what they don't like. Older generations often criticize young people with this logic. If you know that the hate will continue to come periodically in the future, and that it will only be used for an impeccable purpose within the "high people" of this organization, which will not be particularly helpful to the organization's performance, will they be persuaded by the same logic then?

It's not going to work.

Of course, large corporations can't always put a 'tong' at the head of an organization for their own complicated reasons. Although financiers ruin a company, there are many companies that are turned away from the market after being obsessed with technology. However, in such circumstances, the organization must at least devise a plan so that executives don't consume their employees for unnecessary curiosity. However, the real problem we face is that there is no place to do so.