Show Cover Slide
Korea's Silicon Valley Syndrome
gpt-4-turbohas translated this article into English.
1. Why can’t we be like Apple, Silicon Valley, or Tesla?
Many startup owners say,
“Let’s work autonomously like Silicon Valley.”
“Let’s produce with the completeness of Apple.”
“Let’s execute as quickly as Tesla.”
However, the organization moves in the opposite direction.
While talking about autonomy, reporting increases,
While aiming for completeness, designers work overtime,
While pushing for quick execution, failure is not tolerated.
2. There are slogans, but no structure
These sayings sound plausible, but they are not actually implemented.
The reason is simple.
It’s because there is no structure.
- Autonomy does not work without a responsible decentralized structure.
- Completeness requires decision-making authority in leadership.
- Execution power is possible only with a structure that allows for failure.
3. Silicon Valley, Apple, Tesla, Meta, Google, and Amazon all have different structures
While all these companies are grouped under the name of ‘innovation’,
their decision-making methods and execution structures are completely different.
| Company | Decision-making Structure | Execution Structure | Key Conditions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Silicon Valley Startup | Decentralized autonomous decisions | Alignable OKRs/feedback loops | Psychological safety + information transparency |
| Apple | Centralized designer decisions | Precision execution based on completion | Concentration of design authority + long-term vision |
| Tesla | Redesign-centered execution loop | Rapid failure and redesign repetition | Fast experimentation + structural feedback |
| Meta | Individual performance-centered, vertical approval structure | Experimentation under strong goal pressure | Quantified feedback + individual-driven execution |
| Function-centered matrix structure | Team-based collaborative OKR execution | Psychological safety + data-driven decisions | |
| Amazon | Strong top-down based on leadership principles | Mechanism-based execution routines | Codified standards + independent ownership structure |
It is impossible to realize all these in the same way.
The moment you demand incompatible structures simultaneously, the organization loses direction.
Furthermore, each organization’s leadership is different, and accordingly, their culture is formed differently.
Even if their geographic locations are the same, the principles that move the organizations are completely different.
Even though most of these started as Silicon Valley startups, the fact that they redesigned their leadership and execution structures during growth should not be overlooked.
Grown organizations no longer move in the ‘startup way’.
4. The leadership error of the owner
The question, “Why can’t we be like them?” often translates to:
“Why don’t the members move as I think?”
However, what really needs to be looked at is the absence of your own leadership structure.
- Responsibility is pushed downwards, decisions are made upwards: Hierarchy, not autonomy
- Failure is not permitted: Experimentation is impossible
- No design authority: Maintaining completeness is impossible
- No process: Repetition is impossible
This is the real reason.
5. We now need to choose a structure
It’s no longer about good-sounding words,
we need to choose an executable structure.
| Desired Direction | Necessary Structure |
|---|---|
| Autonomous culture | Role-based decision-making, feedback-centered routines |
| Completeness-focused | Concentration of design authority, centralized decision structure |
| Execution-focused | Failure-resilient execution loop design |
“Wanting to do everything” is the same as saying “I will do nothing.”
Conclusion
If the owner cannot find an important direction for leadership, the organization will not change.
The organization must definitely choose one direction and design a structure accordingly.
Setting a role model is very important. However, you must focus on one role model.
The Silicon Valley, Apple, Tesla, Amazon, Google, Meta we mention all have different philosophies and structures, and
they are organizations that operate in different ways which must be recognized.
Slogans without structure harm the organization.
Illusions of leadership plunge the organization into chaos.
Now is the time to choose ‘design’ over ‘words’.
Q&A: Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. Which direction should our organization choose?
A1. Drop the desire to “do everything” and first choose one thing that is currently needed for your organization.
- If members are feeling suppressed → Start with an autonomy-based structure
- If quality issues are frequent → Start with a completeness-focused structure
- If fast feedback is crucial at this stage → Start with designing an execution loop
Q2. What specifically should a leader do?
A2. It’s not just about talking about direction, you need to design a structure that can realize that direction.
- Who makes the decisions
- How failures are managed
- How learning is repeated
Without clarity on these three, slogans end merely as empty words.
Q3. Can’t we have autonomy, completeness, and execution power at the same time?
A3. Ideally, it’s possible, but advanced structural design to prevent mutual conflicts is a prerequisite.
Realistically, a phased approach is more effective.
Priorities must be set, and structures stabilized one at a time.
Q4. Shouldn’t the CEO be involved down to the details?
A4. Involvement is possible, but the method is crucial.
- Changing details directly and
- Creating standards and structures to decide details are different.
The latter is true leadership, while the former is merely control.
Q5. Where should we start with all this?
A5. Start with these three questions:
- What do we most need right now?
- Who makes decisions, and who is responsible in our structure?
- How is our slogan connected to a structure?
If you can’t answer these questions, no slogan can change your organization.
Go Home