[Park Yong-hoo / Perspective Designer] The Kakao Labor Union issued a statement criticizing the collapse of responsible management within the Kakao community following the resignation of CPO Hong Min-taek. The statement cites long working hours, the deterioration of organizational culture, controversies over evaluations and compensation, and the successive resignations of executives, arguing that Kakao’s HR system itself has failed.

It is the labor union’s right to raise concerns about working conditions and organizational culture. A healthy company must not ignore the voices of its members. However, when diagnosing a company’s problems, facts must take precedence over anger, structure over claims, and consistency over immediate gains.

Reading this statement raised two questions for me.

Is Kakao’s problem really just that certain executives have left? And how should we interpret the demand for higher performance bonuses, even while agreeing that the company is in crisis?

The essence of Kakao’s crisis lies not in the failures or resignations of a few individuals, but in structural problems that repeatedly generate the same controversies and confusion. And to properly confront that problem, the labor union’s statement itself is not exempt from criticism.

Kakao is not a single company

Many people think of Kakao as a

single

corporation. However, the Kakao community is actually a massive conglomerate comprising dozens of affiliated companies. That is why it is often criticized as a “tentacle-like” conglomerate.

Kakao HQ, Kakao Enterprise, Kakao Mobility, Kakao Entertainment, DK Techin, and others are all separate legal entities. They have different CEOs, different boards of directors, and different business objectives and decision-making structures.

Yet this statement lumps the CEOs and executives of these different companies together under a single accountability framework. The cases of CPO Hong Min-taek, former CEO Hong Eun-taek, CEO Yang Ju-il, former CEO Baek Sang-yeop, and CEO Lee Won-ju are described as if they were all part of the same issue.

However, this is an interpretation that oversimplifies the facts and scope of responsibility. The management of Kakao affiliates and the personnel of the CA Council do not necessarily operate under the same personnel structure. Responsibility for the business operations and management of affiliates lies with the management of those respective corporations, while the Council is responsible for coordination and cooperation at the corporate group level.

The argument that links all problems to a single failure in the personnel system is a convenient oversimplification of Kakao’s complex governance structure. A diagnosis made without understanding the structure is unlikely to lead to a solution, no matter how justified the anger may be.

Isn’t Resignation a Form of Accountability?

The union’s statement repeatedly characterizes the management’s resignation as effectively “running away” or “evading responsibility.” However, in corporate management, replacing executives is the most common form of accountability when performance falls short of expectations or strategic decisions fail.

Microsoft replaced key executives following the failure of its mobile business. Google, too, saw those in charge leave as numerous projects were shut down. Meta reorganized its leadership several times during the process of revising its metaverse strategy. We do not call this shirking responsibility. Executives are replaced because they are held accountable for the results.

The moment we equate resignation with shirking responsibility, paradoxically, no executive can leave the organization. True responsible management is not about staying in a position for a long time, but about being evaluated on results and taking responsibility accordingly.

Of course, it is also true that controversies surrounding the CA Council have repeatedly arisen within Kakao. The fact that there is a widespread perception within the organization that certain individuals wield significant influence over actual decision-making, separate from their official titles, is a serious issue in itself. Questions have also been raised both internally and externally regarding the power dynamics between the owner and management, as well as the gap between the community’s values and the language of management.

However, the controversies surrounding Kakao are not simply a matter of who has left. The priority is to reflect on whether the recurring controversies stem from the interplay between official organizational structures and unofficial influence, the gap between the owner’s philosophy and actual management practices, and the lack of clarity regarding responsibilities and authority.

Furthermore, this assessment must apply equally to the entire organization, not just the management.

Has the discrepancy between labor inspections and the operation of “My Time” been addressed?

Issues regarding working hours and annual leave allowances are not merely at the level of suspicion. In fact, labor inspections have confirmed violations related to overtime and annual leave allowances in some departments. It is undeniable that the company cannot be absolved of its responsibility to address these issues.

The issue of workplace harassment is also difficult to dismiss as mere rumor. Relevant evidence and data have been accumulating, and it is understood that the labor union is preparing related materials. Downplaying confirmed facts is an attitude that turns a blind eye to reality.

However, there is a more important question: Why does overtime persist? What problems exist in the organization’s operational methods and workforce structure? Within Kakao, there have been consistent complaints regarding “MyTime,” the company’s work hour tracking system. Discrepancies between actual working hours and recorded hours, the potential for abuse of the self-reporting system, and the lack of clarity regarding managerial accountability have been repeatedly pointed out. It is necessary to examine whether such systems are creating blind spots in labor hour management.

We must acknowledge the confirmed facts while simultaneously examining the structural causes that produced them. An accurate diagnosis is essential for an effective solution.

The contradiction of demanding higher performance bonuses while claiming a crisis

There is one particularly striking point in the union’s recent statement. While strongly criticizing Kakao for being in a serious crisis, the union is simultaneously voicing dissatisfaction with the performance bonus and compensation system.

These two claims are logically difficult to reconcile.

If we agree with the diagnosis that the company is in a crisis, then that crisis is a condition that all members must bear together. The consequences of management failure affect not only the executives but the entire organization. In a situation where corporate value has fallen significantly from its peak, operating profits are declining, and business restructuring is underway, it is not surprising that the total amount of compensation is decreasing. That is also evidence of the crisis.

The argument that workers’ contributions must be adequately recognized deserves respect. If compensation is set unreasonably low relative to performance, that is certainly a problem that should be addressed. However, placing the diagnosis that “the company is in crisis” and the demand for “more performance-based bonuses” side by side in the same statement undermines logical consistency, regardless of intent.

When speaking of a crisis, one must be prepared to accept its consequences as well. If the attitude is to hold only management accountable for the crisis while refusing to share in its pain, this is not the legitimate exercise of a labor union’s rights but rather the selective logic of an interest group.

It is time to ask a more fundamental question. If we truly want to solve Kakao’s problems, we must treat negotiations for higher compensation and the raising of structural issues as separate matters. If the two are mixed together, neither will be convincing.

Focusing solely on management’s responsibility is an oversimplification

It is undeniable that Kakao is facing difficulties. However, attributing the cause solely to the failures of a few specific executives is an oversimplification.

The platform industry as a whole has entered a phase of slowing growth. The advertising market is not what it used to be, competition in the content industry has intensified, and the race to invest in AI demands massive expenditures.

Government regulations are also tightening. Not only Kakao, but Naver and global platform companies are also grappling with similar challenges. Explaining Kakao’s crisis with a single phrase like “a personnel disaster” is an approach that oversimplifies reality.

There are more important issues at stake. Why do similar controversies keep recurring? Is the accountability structure between departments clear? Is decision-making between affiliates and the corporate group transparent? Are the voices from the front lines actually being reflected in management decisions?

If these questions remain unanswered, the same problems are bound to recur regardless of who comes or goes.

Moreover, these structural issues are not just a problem for workers. Shareholders who trusted Kakao and invested over the years, only to get stuck at the peak, are also voicing their frustration and distrust. If management changes and the organization is restructured, yet corporate value fails to recover and the same controversies keep recurring, the market will also find it difficult to place its trust in the company. If both workers and shareholders are suffering, the focus of the problem must ultimately be on the structure, not on individuals.

Changing the system comes first.

When a company faces a crisis, the easiest solution

is

to find a scapegoat. It is easy to point fingers at management, but difficult to change the system—including oneself. What Kakao needs right now is not another search for a scapegoat.

Rather than debating who has left, the priority must be analyzing why the same problems keep recurring. True responsible management does not begin with blaming specific individuals. It begins with changing the structure to prevent the recurrence of problems, restoring trust, and clarifying responsibilities and authority.

And this structural self-reflection must apply not only to management but also to the labor union. If the logic of crying “crisis” while trying to protect profits, shifting responsibility onto others, and pocketing rewards for oneself continues to repeat itself, that too is another structure that traps Kakao in a cycle of recurring controversy.

Kakao’s future will not be determined by who leaves the company. What matters more is what kind of structure everyone who remains will build, and whether they can be honest about their roles within that structure.

People can change. However, if the structure remains unchanged, and if there is no collective will across the organization to change that structure, the same problems are bound to recur.