I can only speak for the languages I know, such as Korean and English, so I can't speak to how things work in other languages. Korean tends to omit the subject in both spoken and written forms, which I believe has more advantages than disadvantages. I find that omitting or making the subject ambiguous in everyday conversation has its benefits. For example, when speaking with someone with whom I share a close relationship, I can express my point concisely without the need for long explanations.
In contrast, English tends to add the subject unnecessarily in every sentence. Even when a simple noun or verb would suffice, English often insists on including the subject, and in some cases, the dummy subject "it" is used to maintain the sentence structure.
I never fully understood my English teacher’s statement in school that "verbs are the most important in English," or that simply having the subject and verb conveys meaning. Even now, I don't fully agree with that idea. While this might be true for grammatical structures and for taking English tests, I think the importance of the subject and verb depends on the situation. Sometimes, the subject and verb may not be as important for conveying meaning.
Let’s take a simple example. In the sentence “I eat ramen,” I think the object, "ramen," is more important than the subject (I) and the verb (eat). With just the word “ramen,” our brains can easily infer the context of the sentence. The word "ramen" pairs naturally with verbs like “eat,” “boil,” or “buy,” and the context will help us figure out that "eat" is the most fitting verb without needing to explicitly say it. The subject "I" and the verb "eat" are helpful, but we can understand the meaning with less information, thanks to the context.
The point I’m making here is that omitting subjects and verbs in Korean also has its merits and can still be effective in communication. However, when it comes to business or academic writing, I find Korean lacks the clarity that is often necessary. While omitting subjects might work in casual or familiar settings, it can be a major weakness in more structured environments, such as when working in a group or organization.
For an organization to function effectively, clear goals are required. These goals are typically documented in writing. However, many documents written in Korean lack clarity when it comes to the subject. When goals are ambiguous, team members might interpret them differently. If even a written goal is unclear, the chance for miscommunication increases, especially when communicated verbally. A goal document should clearly state the background, target objectives, methods, strategies, and expected outcomes, all with clear subjects.
When working in a group, it’s essential to clarify who is responsible for what.
First, when acknowledging achievements, the specific person’s name should be mentioned. In Korea, there is a tendency to avoid mentioning names, possibly due to the cultural aspect of humility or the discomfort some might feel when recognizing others’ achievements. A typical example might be a report on improving an API’s response time. Instead of saying, “Our team improved the response time of the query API,” it should be more specific, such as, “Mr. A from our team improved the response time of the query API.” Recognizing individual contributions, even with simple mentions of names, can be a powerful motivator.
Second, when mistakes are made, it’s important to identify who is affected and who can resolve the issue, but it's crucial to avoid singling out someone for blame. Publicly shaming individuals for mistakes can lead to fear and a lack of innovation in addressing issues. However, even in this case, identifying the impacted parties and the problem solvers is necessary. This helps maintain accountability and ensures that solutions are properly handled. The reality is, without mutual trust and professionalism, it's hard to move forward.
Finally, it’s essential to assign clear responsibility when starting new tasks. If no one is explicitly assigned the task, it might remain stagnant. In situations like this, identifying a point person is crucial for progress.
A few years ago, I had the opportunity to work with a leader who had been with a well-known IT company for over 30 years. One of the most remarkable things I noticed was his insistence on using clear subjects in conversations. In every meeting he led, he would ask, "So, who is going to solve this?" or "Who did this?" It took a while for me to get used to this, but I have fond memories of that experience. It made it easy to know who was responsible for what and kept everyone on track.
This preference for clarity extends beyond the workplace. In Korean culture, there's often a reluctance to name people directly. It's common to avoid stating names, and even identifying one’s own name can be uncomfortable. This is particularly true when meeting the parents of our children's friends or in social settings. Ironically, over time, this lack of naming makes it harder to recall or reach out to people.
Names hold great power. Just as we grow attached to objects that have names, the same applies to people. Therefore, using clear subjects, both in naming people and responsibilities, is not only important for clarity in work but also essential for building relationships and long-term memories.
In business, and in life, naming things and people clearly is crucial. It’s not just for effective work but also for maintaining genuine relationships and growing our personal connections. Let’s embrace the power of clear communication for a more efficient and fulfilling future.