If one were to name the most wronged horse in history, it might be the horse ridden — and then killed — by Kim Yu-shin, the famed Silla general of the early 7th century. The story, as remembered from childhood, goes like this.
In his youth, Kim Yu-shin met a gisaeng named Cheon-gwan-nyeo (or Cheon-gwan) at a place he frequented with his peers. He grew fond of her and began visiting her home regularly. In the tight-knit aristocratic society of ancient Gyeongju, word soon reached his mother, Lady Manmyeong. She scolded him, saying, "A man destined to govern the nation should not frequent such places." Kim Yu-shin promised never to visit her again. And for a while, he kept that promise. But one day, after a banquet, he dozed off on horseback, and the horse carried him to Cheon-gwan's house. The horse had likely remembered the route Kim Yu-shin used to take. Furious — or perhaps feigning fury — Kim Yu-shin cut down the horse with a single stroke of his sword and left Cheon-gwan's house at once. That is the gist of the legend.
Did Kim Yu-shin really need to kill the horse? It seems he wanted to put on a performance, claiming that visiting Cheon-gwan's house was not his fault. But what crime had the horse committed? A horse ridden by the great Kim Yu-shin must have been a fine breed. The horse only moved according to its master's will.
Every organization in our society takes the same form. This holds true across all times and places. Most members of an organization naturally watch the head of the organization and try to align with the prevailing mood. Otherwise, they cannot survive within the organization. In other words, what Kim Yu-shin did can only be seen as "tail-cutting." Later, perhaps feeling remorse, Kim Yu-shin built a temple called "Cheon-gwan-sa" after Cheon-gwan died — a touching footnote added to the tale.
The recent Starbucks controversy brought to mind once again "Kim Yu-shin, who beheaded his horse with a single stroke." Starbucks held an event called "Tank Day" on May 18, the date of the 1980 Gwangju Democratization Movement. The phrase "tak on the desk" was also used. Criticism erupted immediately. Starbucks should naturally have apologized and scrapped the event. But what is interesting is that Starbucks merely tweaked it, releasing a revised version with "Tank Tumbler Day" and "tak during work." In other words, the company did not see the word "tank" itself as a major problem. The result is what we now see. The fallout has shaken not only Starbucks and its parent Shinsegae Group but the entire nation.
This likely stems from a perception that had spread not only within Starbucks but throughout Shinsegae Group. The thinking was probably: What's wrong with a "Tank Day" promotion? If some people are criticizing it, why not just slip "tumbler" in the middle? The basis for that perception likely originated from the past behavior of the leader or the group itself. In other words, it appears identical to the thinking of "Kim Yu-shin's horse" that headed for Cheon-gwan's house.
Stagnant thinking inside an organization is dangerous. That is why every word and action of an organization's leader matters. And yet, things still do not change much. We already harbor fixed ideas — preconceptions — about what a particular administration is likely to think. The same applies to private companies, and even to small private clubs.
To make matters worse, although the media has expanded overall and points of contact with the world have widened through social media and other channels, the breadth of each individual's awareness has, paradoxically, narrowed in some cases. By consuming only certain media outlets, certain YouTube channels, or only what one already likes, individual thinking grows increasingly biased. Recently, those who watch one YouTuber and those who watch the opposite YouTuber have in some cases reached a point where dialogue itself is impossible. This was true in the past as well, but the consensus is that it has been worsening lately.
If the organization changes, can it avoid the "bomb"? It probably will not change easily. Organizational decision-making requires both a blue team and a red team. The blue team pushes the organization's intended policy, while the red team presents the opposing view. The more a leader is convinced he or she knows everything, the more a red team is needed. Will you become Kim Yu-shin — or the horse beheaded with a single stroke?
