Idiotopedia: The "Sheep*" Leadership

Disclaimer:?I just want to make it clear that I have no bad feelings about Samsung's leadership management style. What I write here is based only on my experiences and the lessons I've learned over the years. While some people might find some parts difficult, I, on the other hand, learned a lot from this distinctive management style. Even though it was challenging, the journey changed how I think about leadership in ways I didn't expect.

I read "The Samsung Way" by Jaeyong Song and Kyungmook Lee around 3 years ago. It hit me back then, and the lessons it taught me are even more useful now that I'm mentoring several executives on being good leaders in today's shaky business world. Transformational strategies were a big part of the book, but many leaders today are stuck in the past and rigid models that stop progress. Even though a lot is said about creativity, it seems like many people are still stuck in old ways of leading.

The reality is that the world's business world has changed. It's a battlefield where you must be quick (??), flexible, and smart to live and do well. These leaders work for both tech startups and established businesses. One thing they all have in common is that they find it hard to balance control and trust. It's more important than ever to learn from the book how to be open to new ideas while maintaining strategic control. For all the lessons we can learn from the tactics, the real change has to come from the leader. Success comes not only from being able to think strategically but also from knowing that in this tough environment, leading means giving up control and letting others lead with you!

My Journey...        

I worked at Samsung Research for a decade and retired a few years ago (that's why I can share some of my thoughts about this amazing company). I remember that the journey was challenging at times but also one of the most inspiring times in my work life. Samsung, a multinational giant, is a microcosm of high expectations, strict hierarchies, and constant innovation, all of which are part of a complicated ecosystem locally and globally. I witnessed how Samsung's famous "Tiger Management" style interacted with different leadership styles over the years, and #phew I was able to adapt to and change this reality. The kind of leadership I made was a mix of Samsung's strict, results-oriented style with local knowledge, adaptability, and freedom.

The Tiger Management...        

At Samsung, "Tiger Management" is more than just a term for a strict way of leadership. It's a deeply ingrained culture of high standards, discipline, and unwavering commitment to the company's goal. At its core, this system works best with a strict structure, where orders come down from above and are expected to be carried out right away and "without question." As I moved through this structure's layers, it became clear that this isn't a place for people unwilling to push themselves. At every management level, the goal is to strengthen a chain of command that needs to be quick and accurate, leaving little room for discussion or local adaptation. Well, it was tough for me in the first year.

There is a constant push to reach high goals. People in charge at Samsung are often called the "tigers" of the company because they set the tone for everyone else. Their active approach to growing their business, releasing new products, and entering new markets always makes things feel like they need to be done immediately. No matter what role an employee plays, they feel this pressure because expectations are passed down the chain of command. I saw how decisions made in the headquarters—sometimes thousands of miles away—had to be carried out right away, even when the local market was very different. It's normal for these choices made at the top to feel disconnected from reality, which can cause problems between local teams and the global leadership.

It's clear and strange what would happen with this kind of setup. On the contrary, Samsung's "Tiger Management" has helped the company do amazing things globally. Its fast growth, dominance in many industries, and reputation for being on the cutting edge of new ideas all show how well this high-pressure setting works. Yet, this costs the employees a lot. I saw it repeatedly: employees, especially middle-level managers, caught between the strict demands of project management in the headquarters and the practical difficulties of running local operations. The constant pressure to do well can cause burnout, high turnover, and a mindset of fear that stops people from being creative and coming up with new ideas.

One of the hardest things I had to do was figure out how to be a fair leader in this system. I often had to balance the strict demands of the top with trying to make the local-level culture more durable and employee-friendly. In some situations, the pressure from above was so intense that it seemed almost impossible to make real changes. High turnover rates were common; employees vented anger on sites like Glassdoor without giving their names. Reviews always talked about how tired and disconnected people felt from leadership. Still, despite the problems that came up, there were lessons to be learned about being strong, disciplined, and efficient.

I can say that Samsung's Tiger Management is an example of a leadership system that works, even though it is deeply flawed in many ways. It will be hard to change this method without losing the intensity and drive that has become associated with the brand. While it's still unclear whether this will occur, one thing is for sure: becoming a leader at Samsung is not for the weak of the heart.

The Culture...        

When it comes to Korean business culture, hierarchy is more than just a structure at Tiger Management. It's a way of life. In this case, respect for management affects every part of decision-making, making sure that the balance of power is kept and followed exactly. Senior management is very strict, and decisions come straight from the top. There isn't much room for change or disagreement, which makes the workplace very disciplined.

This system's structure often encourages a sense of accuracy and control, which can be very useful for ensuring goals are met. It does cost something, though. Employees may feel scared or anxious at work because questioning management is seen as rude. On paper, this chain of command seems clear and effective. However, it can create pressure that stops people from creativity and developing new ideas. This can result in a standardized workplace culture where everyone does what they're told, and few people dare to think outside the box.

I've seen how this way of doing things doesn't work in some cultural settings, especially in Southeast Asia. Take Indonesia as an example. In this country, work ties and small cultural differences play a big role in how things get done daily. In this situation, a strict top-down leadership style can turn off talented people, make it harder for people to work together, and lower the morale of employees who do better in settings based on relationships and trust. If a company like Samsung wants to do business all over the world, it needs to change the way it leads people to fit the needs of each country. This is why a company needs to be "GLOCAL"—to balance global objectives with knowledge of local wisdom.

And multinational companies can't just use the same management styles in different areas as they do in their home country. They know that the same hierarchical method might not work best everywhere, so they need to be able to listen, learn, and adapt to the cultures of the places where they work. Knowing this difference can mean the difference between a global workforce that works well together and one that doesn't feel connected to the company's ideals and goals.

Glocal Leadership Approach...        

I learned that leadership is more than just doing what you're told or following the rules. It's about finding the right mix between being in control and being able to adapt to changing circumstances. Like Samsung, a "Glocal" company isn't just fancy business speak; it's a way to stay in business. I experienced the reality, and it became clear: a global company can't just bring its strict leadership style from home to every market. With its strict hierarchy and almost military-like focus on efficiency, Korean leadership may work at home. Still, the whole system can fall apart when it goes to markets that value teamwork and social nuance.

I could feel this crack for myself. As I watched the company try to force local markets to give in, I realized how easy it is to forget the people involved. In my way, I broke away from the strict rules of headquarters. I didn't just guide them; I gave them power. That freedom cost something. And HQ was always looking for quick wins, so they often thought my method was weak, blundered, or unfocused. But I knew it would cost us much more to give in to the strict rules of order in the long run. It was this dark undercurrent of leadership that says, "Conform or be left behind." that I chose to resist against. I put people first and long-term progress over short-term success, even if it meant going against the rules set by the bosses. Thus, I believe that to be a real leader, you need to know when to break the rules and get things done that are bigger than what the system allows. It's not about the title or the power you have.

This is where the real power lies—not in giving orders from the top down but in building a bridge between global strategy and local wisdom.

The Double-Edged Sword of Tiger Management...        

Back to the main topic of this article, many people say that Tiger Management gets results, and it's hard to fight with that at first glance. But if you've been through it like I have, you know that this kind of leadership isn't just a strong means; it's a sword that cuts both ways. The people it's supposed to help pay a high price for the outcome. Yes, I've experienced that, and not just in terms of numbers. I've also seen broken souls and minds. How many people leave companies like Samsung in Indonesia? Numbers on a report aren't just numbers; they're the bloodstains on the battlefield of business war. People don't just quit because the work is tough; they quit because the constant stress kills them.

This system strongly goes against traditional norms in places like Indonesia, where family and relationships are very important. Not only do employees' expectations crush them, but they also crush the things they hold dear outside of work. Young, skilled, and bright-eyed people with a lot of potential have burned out and left, running to companies that said they would value their personal time, mental health, and work-life balance, especially when dealing with the current evolving generations. They want something that Tiger Management can't give them: people.

What's even scarier is that this type of leadership always kills creativity. When you are constantly under pressure to do well and every KPI affects your job, originality not only dies, it's completely gone. Fear takes over as the ruling force. People are afraid to think about anything other than their current job, question the status quo, or try something new. The system wants results right away, and that makes the long-term goal fall apart. But this is where good leadership gets tricky. In the strictest and most repressive systems, leaders can create safe spaces—areas of freedom where new ideas can thrive, even if only for a short time. Great leaders know that people are not machines. They find ways to protect their teams from the worst parts of the system. This lets them think, try new things, and fail sometimes without worrying about getting in trouble.

But this balance doesn't happen very often. Tiger Management still does a lot of damage to people's minds, and for most, the scars are still very deep. It's not only about getting things done but also about figuring out if the human cost of those things is something we're willing to keep paying.

Personal Note...        

A big company like Samsung faces a bigger problem that most people don't notice (maybe Tesla, Huawei, Apple, and others), even though it's often seen as a powerful global force. Its real weakness is that it finds it hard to change locally, where leadership details are very important. When I think about what I've seen and done, especially what I've learned from Tiger Management, I see a trend many global organizations face. Headquarters can push hard for results and create a culture of strong competition. But it doesn't know how to balance that Tiger-like aggression with the kind of caring leadership that makes everyone more likely to develop new ideas. As a leadership ecosystem grows, the chain of command can become inflexible. This pressures local teams to get things done without fully knowing or incorporating their specific cultural and market needs. I can say companies like Samsung are successful around the world. Still, to stay a major player, it must stop being a "global giant" and start being truly global, which means having global reach and local flexibility. It's not enough to push for results and new technologies if the leaders don't create a culture that gives people power, reacts to local needs, and keeps team morale high.

As a retired executive, I've learned that leadership isn't just about getting more people to do things or getting a bigger part of the market. It's also about knowing that the strength of every tiger is its ability to adapt. Being stiff and unwilling to bend will only break down teams and keep people from reaching their full potential. True leadership innovation isn't about new technology; it's about a new way of leading that combines fierce desire with kindness, adaptability, and a deep knowledge of the area. Again, to be a leader, you need to know when to speak, listen, guide from the front, and give people behind you the tools they need to do their jobs. Being a true "Glocal" star means taking over both markets and people's minds. Only then will the company continue to do well without leaving behind teams that are burned out. For you, dear leaders, that's where leadership is going.

If we don't change how we lead, we could end up with empty cages and memories of what could have been. When people lose their creativity, drive, and passion, the things that make a group work fail. As leaders, we need to remember that our job isn't to tame the tigers; it's to make a wild place for them to thrive. If they can do that, they'll take the whole team to places we could never have imagined on our own. But now, I want to start again as a sheep leader for myself...

Anyway, thank you, Samsung!

Enjoy the journey—stay healthy, happy, and sane!

*Ref.?Tigers?are often associated with?Strength, Power, Courage, Ferocity, and Wildness,?while?sheep?are often associated with?Gentleness, Humility, Passivity, Docility, and Domestication.