As the second World Baseball Classic came to a close, Japan and Korea had much to celebrate. I believe the Korean team achieved more than game victories. The Korean team reminded adherents of American values and systems, of whom I used to be one, of the importance of Korean values. Perseverance and monetary incentives can explain some of the Korean team's success. The key, however, was team spirit and teamwork. In the jargon of human resource management experts, Venezuela and the U.S. took the star model approach while Korea followed the commitment model for maximizing their achievements.
In the field of HR, the star model focuses on individual competence, so that competition is encouraged among employees and compensation is based on individual performance. It is the model adopted among most major U.S. companies; key employee management, which is growing in popularity among Korean companies, is one example of this approach. In contrast, companies using the commitment model select and employ workers based on how they fit into and are of value to the organization rather than on their individual competence. This model is the one traditionally adopted by Asian corporations, but with globalization, some American companies have been paying more attention.
Leaders who believe that the performance turned in by the top 1 percent of their staff can determine the success of the organization may prefer the star model. Those leaders who believe that the achievements of an organization result from teamwork would likely employ the commitment model. Due to the differences between these perspectives, organizations using the commitment model tend to minimize wage gaps among their employees while those using the star model have wide gaps. To summarize this year's WBC, Asian teams using the commitment model achieved total victory over Western teams using the star model.
With the Korean baseball team's success as a starting point, I took some time to reassess the role of Korean values in the field of business management. It can be said that Seoul National University Business School, where I teach, has in the age of globalization become a replica of an American business school. Out of the school's 50 professors, 49 earned their PhDs from U.S. schools, and decisions about promotion and compensation are based on how much they've published in international journals recognized by U.S. schools. Professors hired in recent years must deliver their lectures in English. American management theories are introduced, and American business cases are discussed in class. Korean business cases get introduced sometimes, but they are discussed within the perspective of American management theory. In retrospect, I realize I have been preaching American management theories in the past decade without knowing it.
Management scholars, myself included, may reflect on the past during this sudden world economic catastrophe started by the American financial crisis. It was truly shocking to see Alan Greenspan and Jack Welch, who have been spreading American values around the world, apologize to the American people for their mistakes.
Recently the U.S. has not hesitated to disburse public capital rather than reorganize delinquent companies and has been taking decidedly non-American measures such as protective trade policies.
Management philosophies and theories are changing radically. Those companies and management theorists who unquestioningly accepted American values in the past may do well to focus more on reviving the Korean values that we forgot long ago.