Failure deserves scrutiny, not humiliation

Kim Eun-mi

The author is a professor of communications at Seoul National University. 

The public criticism directed at former Korea national football team coach Hong Myung-bo was extraordinarily harsh.A national team manager bears enormous responsibility, and failures on the World Cup stage naturally deserve scrutiny. If flaws existed in the process of appointing the coach, they should be examined and those responsible held accountable.

But if reports are true that threats extended to Hong's family and even raised concerns about their safety, the episode crossed a line. Criticizing performance and investigating failure must never be confused with destroying a person's dignity.

The controversy recalls 2018, when former national baseball team manager Sun Dong-yol appeared before the National Assembly over criticism surrounding military service exemptions granted through the Asian Games. Military exemptions are an exceptionally sensitive issue in Korea, and the public had every right to demand transparency. Yet the hearing gradually shifted away from examining institutional shortcomings and toward attacking the manager's professional judgment.

One lawmaker presented statistics for two anonymous players and publicly asked Sun which he would select. Sun answered that, based solely on those numbers, he would choose one player. The lawmaker immediately challenged him for having selected someone else. Another legislator criticized Sun for evaluating players through television broadcasts rather than attending every game in person, implying that he was neglecting his duties despite his salary. Legitimate questions about the selection process gave way to an oversimplified dismissal of professional expertise.

Hong Myung-bo can certainly be criticized. The Korea Football Association's (KFA) hiring process, compliance with regulations and administrative accountability should all be examined. Public oversight plays an essential role by requiring officials to explain their decisions, clarifying responsibility and discouraging arbitrary decision-making.

The problem is that procedural mistakes and professional judgment are repeatedly conflated. Evaluation of a decision quickly becomes an attack on an individual's morality or character. Once that happens, public scrutiny no longer serves its intended purpose. Instead of improving institutions, society focuses on finding someone to blame.

This pattern extends well beyond sports. Similar scenes unfold after corporate failures or unsuccessful public policies. Illegal conduct and procedural violations deserve rigorous investigation. Yet decisions made under uncertainty are often judged solely by their outcomes. Failures that could not reasonably have been predicted become evidence of greed, incompetence or moral deficiency, while the complex circumstances behind them disappear.

A familiar cycle follows. Public anger grows after disappointing results. Politicians and the media amplify that anger through provocative questioning and sensational coverage. Soon one individual becomes the public sacrifice, while the multiple causes of failure and the responsibilities of different actors fade from view. Professional judgment is reduced to a story of personal incompetence or unethical behavior.

The National Assembly should establish facts through evidence and objective standards. Too often, however, hearings deteriorate into performances marked by shouting and personal humiliation. Rather than distinguishing between procedural accountability and professional discretion, lawmakers end up judging an individual's competence and character. Basic respect disappears.

The consequences are deeper than many realize. The greatest casualty is expertise itself. Complex problems are inherently uncertain, and the quality of a decision cannot always be judged by its outcome. If experts worry more about public outrage than reaching the best judgment, they will become increasingly defensive and risk-averse. Instead of making the best decision, they will make the safest one. Organizations, meanwhile, learn that sacrificing an individual is often the easiest way to survive.

Professional expertise should never become a shield against accountability. But a bad outcome does not automatically prove that a decision was wrong or immoral. Failure has value only if it leads to reflection and becomes the basis for better decisions in the future. A society that withdraws respect from those who fail cannot learn from failure itself.

The National Assembly is expected to hold a hearing soon on the KFA, including former coach Hong Myung-bo. Eight years have passed since Sun Dong-yol appeared before lawmakers. One can only hope that Korea has learned enough to investigate failure rigorously without abandoning respect for those who experienced it.