Helpful Resources for Making it Big in Korea
 |
 |
 |
 |
New Korea Economic Slice - Review of Peter Underwood's New Book "First Mover"
Steven S. Bammel is the creator of Korea Business Central and developer of the Korea Business Central Professional Certification Program, as well as president and lead consultant at Korean Consulting & Translation Service, Inc.
July 29, 2012
Review of Peter Underwood's New Book First Mover
By Steven S. Bammel, KBC Creator
| Editor: |  |
Eun-Shil Park |
Koreans don’t generally appreciate foreigners telling them to alter their way of doing things. But Peter Underwood isn’t your average foreigner, and he isn’t one to shy away from a challenge. In First Mover, Underwood advocates fundamental social and business changes that, if implemented, would lead to a thorough reordering of Korean society, and could even transform Korea into a “hub of excellence”, as he describes in the last chapter of the book.
First Mover is written in Korean for Koreans, and so figuring out just the right angle for a review written in English to our KBC audience has been a bit of a challenge for me. Moreover, Underwood is pretty much preaching to the choir with us, since he discusses many perspectives that are often shared by our members online.
Underwood’s analysis of the Korean situation isn’t unheard of in Korea either; many Koreans have been talking about these same issues and reaching similar conclusions for quite some time. Thus, what really makes this book noteworthy is not that it breaks new ground, but that a non-Korean who knows and loves Korea and Korean well enough to comment, is joining the debate, and this is the way in which First Mover has the most potential for impact.
Underwood makes a great effort at the beginning of the book to soften up his Korean readers for what is to come. Mindful of Korean resistance to outside advice, he shares the history of his family in Korea, which goes back an unbelievable 125 years! Indeed, the Underwood name is legendary in Korea.
Though his Western perspective is evident throughout the book, Underwood tries not to come out and identify himself as a foreigner. The best we can get from him on this is that he’s a “Westerner with roots in Korea” (한국에 뿌리를 둔 서양인). But throughout the book, he speaks as a Korean, often using the word “we” (우리) rather than “you” when referring to Koreans, and Korea as “우리 나라” rather than just “Korea”.
To summarize the book down to a single idea, it would be this: “What worked for Korea in the past (being a “fast follower”) won’t get Korea to the top, and Koreans will have to change in fundamental ways in order to prosper in the future (by becoming a “first mover”).”
Following the overview of Underwood’s “credentials” in the introduction, the book opens up with an extended pep talk, devoting a chapter to how special Korea is in the world, and then another couple chapters (with perhaps a little hyperbole) about how Korea is at the most important turning point in its history. (p. 36 “... 나는 지금 이시기가 한국 역사상 가장 중요한 변화의 시점이라고 생각한다....”) and how Korea’s future for the next 100-200 years may depend on decisions and changes made now.
From chapter 3, Underwoods starts hitting his main points. First comes a discussion about how Korea needs to foster more creativity within education, society and business by learning how to appreciate the full range of possible answers to problems and challenges. From here, he goes on to assert that the days of the authoritarian boss must come to an end and that without the free input of all members, Korean organizations will not achieve the creativity and effectiveness they need to compete in the new world economy.
Chapter 5 is all about the chaebol, and how they must be made to play fair in the Korean economy. I particularly enjoyed Underwood’s comparison of the South Korean chaebol to the North Korea dictatorship, since I considered writing an article for KBC last year entitled, “The Top Ten Ways Samsung and North Korea Are Alike”... but then I chickened out. Underwood is to be commended for showing more bravery than I did.
Later chapters advocate less reliance on personal networks and factionalism, and more emphasis on performance and productive skills. Underwood also proposes a new kind of openness that goes beyond the internationalization efforts of before, which he insightfully identifies as being “one-way, outward-focused globalization” (p. 226 - “밖으로 나가는 일방적인 국제화”). He says Korea needs more foreign influence in the country, starting with the hiring of hundreds or even thousands of foreign professors and business managers.
Underwood takes aim at the Korean “fast-fast” (빨리 빨리) culture and encourages Koreans to think harder about situations before acting, since strategic errors cost ever more in an advanced economy than they might have during Korea’s early development years.
The very last chapter describes Underwood’s vision for Korea of becoming a “hub of excellence” in the world, contrasting this with past and existing Korean efforts to become a “hub” of just about anything they can think of... He does this after thoroughly kicking the stuffing out of the reputations of other potential competitors (i.e Japan, China and India) in ways likely to bring tears of joy to the eyes of the average Korean reader.
If I had to mention some shortcomings of the book, I’d start by pointing out, as I already explained above, that Underwood’s arguments aren’t all that new; they’ve been making the rounds for awhile, not just in the expat community, but also within Korean society at large. And these discussions have been producing visible (albeit, somewhat timid) efforts to change, such as the introduction of subjective criteria into educational evaluations, enthusiastic criticism from all sides of society (but especially the left) of the high-handed, corrupt and closed approaches of the chaebol and elite, and widespread efforts to come to terms with the growing number of foreigners in Korean society.
I was a bit surprised by Underwood’s repeated assertion that change in Korea must come from the top. (p. 199 - “내가 이 책에서 일관되게 유지하는 태도 가운데 하나는 리더가 먼저 바뀌어야 한다는 것이다”). Having been quite clear that hierarchy in Korean society must be thrown into the dustbin of history, is Underwood saying that those very leaders are now holding Korea ransom? Surely he didn’t mean this in quite the way I took it.
Also, Underwood tries to explain at the beginning of the book that he’s not simply advocating that Korea become like the West... But then it’s very hard to interpret his analysis outside of a Western perspective, so that it seems clear he’s indeed pushing Korea to Westernize more (in spite of what he says).
Lastly, I thought I came across a number of “too easy” arguments in the book. For example, several pages in chapter 8 are dedicated to some pretty common sense logic about how the shortest distance between two points is a straight line and how it would be good to think harder about how to go directly to one’s destination rather than waste time going the wrong way. I also wondered if those pages about the Korean tendency to quantify things were truly discussing a Korean cultural weakness, or an equally valid but just different way of doing things.
First Mover is a solid contribution to the public debate in Korea about how to move forward. Korea is, indeed, facing issues that require resolute answers and I would encourage members of KBC to recommend this book and give it as a gift to Korean friends, students and colleagues. (I picked my copy up at Kyobo, but it’s also available online.) and then follow-up with spirited debate about these important issues.
Peter Underwood is the great-grandson of protestant missionary and founder of Yonhi College (now, Yonsei University) Horace Grant Underwood (Korean name: Doo-Woo Weon), who first arrived in Korea during the Chosun Dynasty at the time of King Gojong in 1885. Horace Underwood was active in education, missionary and medical work in Korea and is buried, along with his wife, at Yanghwajin Cemetery, on the banks of the Han River. Horace Grant’s son and grandson are also buried there and his great-grandson Peter Underwood remains in Korea, working as a business consultant. Having lived in Korea for 127 years, the Underwood family is truly a Seoul original. Around the time of the March First Movement of 1919, Peter Underwood’s grandfather Horace Horton Underwood (Korean name: Han-Gyeong Weon) was active with his wife in sharing with the world about Japanese misdeeds in Korea , including the Jeamri Massacre, and experienced the pain of his wife’s death at the hands of North Korean agents in 1949. Peter Underwood’s father, Horace Grant Underwood (Korean name: Il-Han Weon), served with the US Navy during the Korean War as a navy lieutenant and worked as the senior interpreting officer for UN forces at the time of the armistice. He remained active in evangelism in Korea, making significant contributions to the rebuilding and development of Yonsei University, which was in ruins from the war. The Underwood family has been involved in modern and contemporary history of Korea, and Yonhi College, Gyeongshin School, Saemunan Church and Seogyodong Church were all established by Peter Underwood’s ancestors. Having earned an MBA from San Francisco University, Peter Alexander Underwood (Korean name: Han-Seok Weon), the author of this book, has worked with many Koreans over the years in his capacity as a business consultant. He likes spicy, Korean food, including yukaejang, and will eat just about anything but boshintang (dog stew). He has an impetuous personality like a Korean, such that when eating samkyeopsal, he prefers soju, and is even known to imbibe poktanju. Underwood speaks Korean well but his pronunciation and expressions are a bit accented. Having lived for four years in Japan, he is convinced that Korea is more creative than Japan and will soon surpass Japan economically, and that Korea will become a top-level nation. In regard to Korean economic development, Underwood is copious in his praise for the legendary and unprecedented success that Korea has achieved. But he also does not shy away from sharing advice and hard truths about what it will take Korea to become an advanced nation. He thinks that this publication will likely be the last advice from his family to the country of Korea. Peter Underwood is also a member of the National Brand Committee which promotes Korea around the world. |
Views: 423
Replies to This Discussion | 이 토론에 대한 답글들
-
Permalink Reply by Rich DeBourke on -
Steven – thanks for posting a review of Peter Underwood’s book. I recently picked up a copy of the book at Kyobo Books based on the Wall Street Journal article about Peter and the book to give to one of my Korean clients. My client, who works at Samsung, travels quite a bit, so I figured he could make use of the reading material.
I haven’t heard back from my client on whether he’s read the book yet, and if so what he thought, but I appreciate your review, which provides much more details on what’s in the book. Having had the opportunity to meet Peter at one of the KBC networking events, my impression was that he would write a good book. Your review has confirmed that the book has the potential to generate some interesting discussions and does make a good present to give to Korean clients and business associates.
I’ll have to pick up a few more copies to give out. At only 12,600 Won at Kyobo, it’s a great deal! For anyone going to Kyobo, you have to ask them for 퍼스트 무버 as they don’t list the book on their system under First Mover.
-
Permalink Reply by Steven S. Bammel on -
Thanks for the additional link, Rich.
Thanks also for the tip on how to find the book in the bookstore. I'll also mention that I haven't been able to find it in my local bookstores. Perhaps it could be ordered, but it's apparently only sitting on the shelf in the large bookstores.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave Woods on -
Thank you for reviewing this important book. I look forward to reading it as soon as I can get a copy here in Dallas. The ethos alone that Peter brings, I believe, is sufficient to call this ground-breaking. Are there any other such books written by non-Koreans in Korean?
Although I’ve not yet had the chance to read the book, I do have a couple of observations on the review. Please note that I have been a friend and colleague of Steven Bammel’s for over a decade. His experience, education and training are vast and deep. He is uniquely qualified to review and critique this type of book. I agree with many of the themes he addresses in the review. I respect Steven completely and hold him in very high regard. Now then....
What I would like to offer is a view from outside Korea looking back in. Situated outside the maelstrom that is life and business in Korea, some of we “양교포” see things a little differently.
For example, what nationality appreciates another nationality telling them how to change, improve, globalize, and/or get it right the first time? To say that, “Koreans don’t generally appreciate foreigners telling them to alter their way of doing things,” is true in any country I’ve been in. Might Korea’s level of nationalism be a factor in the country’s degree of sensitivity to such a suggestion?
“Underwood’s analysis of the Korean situation isn’t unheard of in Korea either; many Koreans have been talking about these same issues and reaching similar conclusions for quite some time. Thus, what really makes this book noteworthy is not that it breaks new ground, but that a non-Korean who knows and loves Korea and Korean well enough to comment, is joining the debate, and this is the way in which First Mover has the most potential for impact.”
I just wanted to note how Korean-like this very long, second sentence is in structure. As well, the most important idea is at the end. We are told what the book isn’t before what it is. Just an observation.
And can you link to articles that seriously address these topics in the Korean media. This is a MBA project for sure.
“Though his Western perspective is evident throughout the book, Underwood tries not to come out and identify himself as a foreigner.”
I would like to know how the reviewer would outline the “Western perspective” as it relates to this book. I believe this book looks to show Korea how to improve its lot economically. If so, then is the reviewer mixing Western perspective and business perspective? Why I ask this comes below.
”To summarize the book down to a single idea, it would be this: “What worked for Korea in the past (being a “fast follower”) won’t get Korea to the top, and Koreans will have to change in fundamental ways in order to prosper in the future (by becoming a “first mover”).”
Does the reviewer agree with this main theme? Should Korea not change fundamentally? Should Korea change at all?
“From chapter 3, Underwood starts hitting his main points. First comes a discussion about how Korea needs to foster more creativity within education, society and business by learning how to appreciate the full range of possible answers to problems and challenges.”
It would appear the reviewer totally disagrees with each of these contentions?
“Chapter 5 is all about the chaebol, and how they must be made to play fair in the Korean economy. I particularly enjoyed Underwood’s comparison of the South Korean chaebol to the North Korea dictatorship, since I considered writing an article for KBC last year entitled, “The Top Ten Ways Samsung and North Korea Are Alike”... but then I chickened out. Underwood is to be commended for showing more bravery than I did.”
Let’s see that article!! Yours will be the first in English. You might even make the front page of Chosun Ilbo. Wouldn’t that be cool. Uhmmm, never mind.
Later chapters advocate less reliance on personal networks and factionalism, and more emphasis on performance and productive skills. Underwood also proposes a new kind of openness that goes beyond the internationalization efforts of before (such as they were: half-hearted and without validated processes), which he insightfully identifies as being “one-way, outward-focused globalization” (p. 226 - “밖으로 나가는 일방적인 국제화”). He says Korea needs more foreign influence in the country, starting with the hiring of hundreds or even thousands of foreign professors and business managers.
Do I read the reviewer shuddering at the very thought?
“Underwood takes aim at the Korean “fast-fast” (빨리 빨리) culture and encourages Koreans to think harder about situations before acting, since strategic errors cost ever more in an advanced economy than they might have during Korea’s early development years.”
What’s the reviewer take on this huge characteristic of Korean business? I’ve not seen this topic seriously discussed among Koreans. It seems to me Koreans see this as a true, undeniably positive Korean trait and not to be messed with. I believe this “do immediately -- fix eventually” approach is not efficient.
“Also, Underwood tries to explain at the beginning of the book that he’s not simply advocating that Korea become like the West... But then it’s very hard to interpret his analysis outside of a Western perspective, so that it seems clear he’s indeed pushing Korea to Westernize more (in spite of what he says). “
Here’s where I would like to know how the reviewer defines Western perspective and then business perspective. If we are talking business, economy and other processes that can be measured, then there are best practices. There are better and best existing ways to do things. There are more efficient ways of satisfying consumer needs and wants. That may or may not be the Korean way.
“Lastly, I thought I came across a number of “too easy” arguments in the book. For example, several pages in chapter 8 are dedicated to some pretty common sense logic about how the shortest distance between two points is a straight line and how it would be good to think harder about how to go directly to one’s destination rather than waste time going the wrong way. I also wondered if those pages about the Korean tendency to quantify things were truly discussing a Korean cultural weakness, or an equally valid but just different way of doing things.”
“…just different way of doing things”? What does the review mean by “just different”? Again, if it’s a measurable process, then being different for difference sake is a difficult argument to make.
This is a particularly profound challenge when you have multi-national teams that are supposed to work together on behalf of two or more companies. Collaboration management is a science with best practices and validated lists of processes that make up optimum choices for success in a given situation. McKinsey & Company earns serious coin for just such recommendations to Western companies around the world.
How does the reviewer define” equally valid”? Are there such things that are truly “equally valid”? What are the reviewer’s thoughts with regard to multinational teams? The decision will travel most efficiently between point A and point B, or it will not travel the most efficient way.
“I would encourage members of KBC to recommend this book and give it as a gift to Korean friends, students and colleagues.”
After confirming how Koreans (and indeed any nationality) do not like be advised by foreigners, particularly on how they need to change for any reason, and then you recommend giving the book away? I would really want to know what’s in it before I give it to a Korean who might take offense. If I don’t know what’s it in, why am I giving it to a Korean associate? To get them to change? Or…..?
-
Permalink Reply by Steven S. Bammel on
-
Greetings from Heuksando, Dave. Thanks for the comments. Will post a reply next week after my return. Have a great weekend!
-
Permalink Reply by Steven S. Bammel on
-
Dave - Thanks for your comments, questions and insights. To respond...
I. You're right. Koreans aren't the only ones who don't like outside advice. I would tend to think Koreans are a bit more resistant to this than other nations/nationalities due to historical and cultural factors, but it's definitely not a uniquely Korean characteristic.
II. You asked for some Korean sources which take and address similar perspectives to Underwood's. It doesn't take an MBA course to do that, especially since the book covers so much ground... Here are just a few examples from my recent reading.
a. First Mover talks a lot about the problems in the chaebol. Underwood is nice about the way he says it; the book 삼성을 생각한다, which was a best-seller in Korea a couple years ago, is not a nice book at all and it pulls no punches about the problems in Samsung specifically, and Korean chaebol in general. After reading it myself, I remember trying to discuss it with Koreans I know. It seemed everybody'd read it and nobody disputed that it was largely correct in its portrayal of the company... but nobody really wanted to talk to me about it either. To me, it is clear, that the problems of the chaebol are well-known, though there is not always a consensus on what’s the best way forward.
b. At least one leading liberal political party in Korea advocates the breakup of the chaebol in their party policy. They would mention the same issues as Underwood in supporting this position, though Underwood does not advocate break up, .
c. Here's an interesting quote I came across in a book I'm currently reading about Korean business pioneers, which was spoken publicly by the founder of Doosan Group in 1968, over 40 years ago! This perspective is identical to that in First Mover and it’s clear that these topics have been circulating within Korean society for a long time.회사 창설 때부터 경영과 자본을 분리해야겠다는 생각을 해 왔다. 이제 그 실천의 일보 직전에 이르렀다. 자기가 사장이라고 반드시 아들이나 동생이 사장을 계승해야 한다는 사고방식은 있을 수 없다. 물론 유능한 재질이 있다면 계승할 수도 있으나 유능하지 않은 사람이 그렇게 될때, 그 회사의 다른 유능한 사원들이 앞으로 무엇을 믿고 거기서 일을 하겠는가, 사장의 아들, 손자에게로 사장직이 세습되고 다른 유능한 사람들에게 기회가 주어지지 않는다면 사원의 사기에도 지장이 있을 것이다.
d. In First Mover, Underwood is not enthusiastic about government-led efforts to make Korean food a leading global cuisine. Even the Chungang Ibo isn't all that supportive of these efforts either. Here's an article from Monday's issue - 이래서야 한식 세계화 되겠습니까
e. A few weeks ago I saw another Chungang Ilbo article about the low ownership level of the chaebol controlling families in their own business groups. Seoul Shinmun also had a story on it that day; I guess because new numbers had just been released. These were certainly not presented as good things, even by these conservative papers. I should have picked up the Hankyeoreh or Kyunghyang Shinmun that day; you can be sure they would have been at least as critical as Underwood on these points.
III. You're reading way too much into my comments sometimes. I'm not criticizing the book for advocating fundamental social change or more creativity; I'm reporting the book's position. I agree with many, if not most, of the points Underwood makes, but it’s not my purpose in the review to endorse or argue with him on those. When I’m ready to stake out and defend my own positions, I’ll write my own book! :-)
IV. You ask my opinion on the 빨리 빨리 characteristic of Korean society. Again, the review isn't really about my opinion; I'm trying to tell you about First Mover. But I do agree with you that Koreans don't discuss this aspect in a critical light very much. In fact, I kind of wonder if the 발리 빨리 phrase is more of a foreigner-coined term; the only time I remember it being used by Koreans is in all those fast delivery places with phone numbers that end in 8282 (pronounced almost like 빨리 빨리). The phrase Koreans tend to use a lot more to describe themselves is "성격이 급하다".
V. As for whether the book advocates a Westernizing perspective, this is just the way I take it. I'd encourage you to read the book and tell me why it's not. I think there’s room for disagreement here, though, if for no other reason than just to attract the number of foreigners Underwood would like to see living and working in Korea, the country would have to Westernize a great deal.
VI. The reason I think the book could make a good gift from a Westerner to a Korean, is that the book itself is from a Westerner (well, at least Underwood looks like a Westerner) to Koreans and it covers a wide range of discussable issues and proposed solutions that can facilitate discussion, understanding and progress. It can be a great mechanism for broaching sensitive topics with Koreans one knows.
-
Permalink Reply by Steven S. Bammel on
-
Dave - I came across an editorial in the Chungang Ilbo yesterday entitled 이제 한국판 저커버그가 나와야 한다.
Not only does this short article mention "Fast Follower" and "First Mover", but it also lists a lack of innovation and entrepreneurship as being big Korean problems, which are all themes and keywords of Peter Underwood's book.
From here, the Chungang Ilbo message differs from Underwood, in that they then start talking about what the government can do to foster these economic developments.
For full details about Korea Business Central (KBC), visit the KBC Overview and Support pages.
Feedback, ideas, suggestions or questions about KBC? Click here to share your thoughts publicly with KBC Creator Steven Bammel. Or send Steven a message anonymously.
Contact Steven for media inquiries or professional services support.
Function-Oriented Menu
© 2013 Created by Steven S. Bammel.
