Table of Contents
In Korean Companies, Titles Are More Than Just Name Tags
For a foreigner entering a Korean workplace for the first time, one of the most unfamiliar things might be the titles. In English-speaking offices, using first names is natural, but in Korean, how you address someone changes depending on age, rank, and work relationship. Saying ‘Kim Gwajang-nim’ or ‘Park Bujang-nim’ — combining name and title — is also a quick way to signal who makes decisions and who reports.
That’s why the ‘title destruction’ movement over the past few decades has been seen as more than just a word-change experiment. Instead of ‘bujang,’ ‘gwajang,’ ‘daeri,’ companies add ‘nim’ after names, or call everyone ‘manager’ and ‘pro,’ or use English names and nicknames. The goal is relatively clear: reduce the psychological distance from rank and age, and foster faster exchange of ideas and creative collaboration.
But there’s a common misconception here. It’s easy to think that CJ, Kakao, Naver, and SK all run the same ‘nim’ culture, but the actual systems differ. CJ introduced the ‘name + nim’ format early; Kakao is known for using English nicknames; Naver has used ‘nim’ or ‘manager’ titles; and SK Telecom has long used a single ‘manager’ title. The direction toward horizontality is similar, but the language is different.
The Change That Started at CJ Spread Like a Standard for Large Companies
CJ Group is a prime example, having introduced the ‘nim’ title in place of ranks like ‘bujang,’ ‘gwajang,’ and ‘daeri’ starting in 2000. The fact that even the CEO is not an exception is often mentioned symbolically. It was a choice to lower organizational walls during a period of expanding into creative content, food, and distribution businesses. The expectation was that lower-ranking employees could more easily offer opinions while still using honorifics toward superiors.
Since then, large corporations and IT companies have attempted different forms of title reform. Naver reduced rank-based titles and has used ‘nim’ or ‘manager.’ At Kakao, a culture of calling each other by English nicknames has been in place since the early days. The logic is that when executives and CEOs are called by nicknames, traditional hierarchy is less apparent, at least at the start of a conversation.
SK Telecom’s ‘manager’ system fits the same trend. Even if existing positions haven’t disappeared, it’s an attempt to simplify everyday titles so that people don’t first calculate each other’s years of experience or rank. Samsung Electronics’ ‘Pro’ and Hyundai Motor Group’s simplified rank system can be seen in a similar context. Companies have judged that in fast-changing environments like AI, platforms, and global markets, long approval lines and strong seniority can erode competitiveness.
‘Nim’ Is a Language of Respect, but It Doesn’t Eliminate Authority
In Korean, ‘nim’ is not just a title. It is a high honorific that expresses respect to the other person. Attached to a name, it allows you to be polite to anyone while emphasizing rank differences less than ‘bujang-nim’ or ‘sajang-nim.’ In a meeting, a new employee saying, ‘Min-su-nim, how about reviewing this part differently?’ evokes a different organizational culture than ‘I’ll follow whatever Deputy Kim decides.’
However, just because titles become the same doesn’t mean decision-making authority becomes equal. Organizations still have budget approval rights, personnel authority, evaluation power, and project responsibility. If promotions and rewards are still based on seniority, and if it’s hard to voice opposing opinions to superiors in meetings, horizontality remains superficial. It’s the same logic as how using first names in US companies doesn’t erase differences in rank and responsibility.
That’s why we shouldn’t romanticize title destruction too much. Rank indicators can sometimes help get work done faster. In negotiations with external clients, safety responsibilities on the manufacturing floor, or command chains in emergencies, who has final responsibility needs to be clear. Hiding titles entirely could make it harder for new employees or outside partners to understand the decision-making structure. Horizontal dialogue and clarity of responsibility are not opposing concepts.
Effectiveness Depends on Evaluation and Compensation Outside the Meeting Room
There’s a reason HR experts call title reform a ‘trigger’ — a catalyst for change. Changing how people speak can send a signal that the existing order is not inevitable. But signals alone don’t change institutions. What matters more is whether employees actually face no disadvantage when they raise opposing opinions, whether performance evaluation criteria are transparent, and whether speaking opportunities in important meetings are fairly distributed.
In the corporate culture debates covered by Magazine Hankyung, the core issues were career paths and job-based evaluation. Career paths show employees what competencies lead to what roles. The more promotions and compensation are tied to the job and performance rather than age, entry year, or a supervisor’s personal judgment, the more likely title changes will connect to real cultural change. Conversely, if titles are flat but evaluation criteria are opaque, employee cynicism can grow.
Leadership behavior also matters. If a CEO asks everyone to ‘speak freely’ at a company event but cuts off dissenting opinions in actual meetings, ‘nim’ quickly becomes a formal ritual. On the other hand, in organizations where leaders explain their decisions, take questions, and admit mistakes, nicknames or ‘nim’ titles operate more naturally. Horizontality is not a state where subordinates act like superiors, but a state where well-founded opinions can be heard regardless of position.
Harder Than Titles Is Hearing Uncomfortable Opinions
Counterarguments against title destruction shouldn’t be dismissed lightly. Some companies introduced titles like ‘manager’ or ‘partner’ only to later return to traditional rank systems. Reasons cited include complaints that work distribution and responsibility became unclear, that the meaning of promotion weakened, and that confusion arose in external dealings. There’s no single answer that all organizations must use the same language. R&D, content, and platform organizations may require different communication styles than safety- and production-focused ones.
The linguistic characteristics of Korean society also need consideration. Korean is a language where social relationships are deeply embedded in honorifics and titles. Using English names has the advantage of starting conversations without first asking about age and rank. But not all employees feel comfortable with English nicknames. Some ask: if I already have a Korean name, why create another identity? Does this force the impression that a foreign language is more modern?
Ultimately, the question is less about what employees call each other and more about who can voice dissent to whom. The ‘nim’ after a name can be a good starting point. But if meeting minutes, evaluations, compensation, personnel, and leadership remain unchanged, the title becomes decoration. When Korean companies talk about horizontality, the next indicator to watch is not the speed of new title adoption, but the rate at which new employees’ suggestions are reflected in actual decisions and the degree to which employees who voice dissent feel safe.
Source: Yoo Ho-seung, Magazine Hankyung, March 9, 2022; related reports from Policy Weekly Gonggam.
