A typical Western approach to a project often means considerable upfront research, discussion, and review.
And then, based on all the inputs, a detailed, singular course of action. In contrast, there is a Korean cultural alternative. I call it the “three-option strategy.”
Some background on “why three options.”
Stepping back to the mid-2000s and a joint American and Korean management workshop that I facilitated for a client, one of the Korean team managers pointed out that in Korea, it was a norm to present multiple options.
He explained that to support their leadership’s decision-making, at least three options would be prepared for his seniors… and as many as five ready if the proposal was going to be elevated for review by their Chairman.
In most cases, following this initial presentation, leadership would ask for additional details requiring the team to drill deeper before a decision. All said this process resulted in an approved course of action — leadership assured their team had done their research, considered alternatives… and even some options that were out of the box.
I also recall how not following this model can have consequences. I was asked by a frequent “Agency of the Year” winner to assist in dealing with their Korean client — the relationship troubling the agency’s dedicated account team.
Probing, I found the agency had presented what they felt was the best plan for their client —a well-thought-out global branding campaign for which the agency was confident in their decision.
The Korean client feedback was less than expected and came as a shock to the agency team. In my asking, and of little surprise to me, the Korean client was disappointed and had high hopes for a range of ideas from the agency.
They had expected to be dazzled with creativity and more than just a single idea. In my opinion, this was driven by the advertising agency’s world-class and award-winning creative reputation.
In following up with the Korean client, I recommended that the agency also present the preliminary concept work which they had developed internally before picking what they felt was the best. This would allow the client to have a voice in the decision.
Sadly, the agency was rigid in their thinking, feeling they had submitted their top work, which was sufficient. Not surprisingly, both companies parted ways sometime later.
Questions? Here as always.
