[theqoo] ADOR'S EX-EMPLOYEE B'S INSTAGRAM STORY UPDATE ft. MIN HEEJIN'S STATEMENT

Summary of reactions after posting my statement

1. Executive: 1 long KakaoTalk message saying sorry

2. HYBE: Sorry + DM saying they're going to re-investigate

3. Min Heejin: 77 Katalks about "You didn’t do your job no? Are you HYBE?" + current statement

original post: here

1. Wow 77 messages, creepy

2. HYBE is using this to start things up again ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ

3. HYBE and Min Heejin suit each other

4. Victim, find strength

5. ......... Victim, cheer up

6. The people committing secondary as****lt here, don't live your life like that

7. Sigh... Min Heejin is quite a handful to deal with too

8. There are so many hate comments on the victim's IG, find strength

9. This is horrible, I hope the victim find strength

10. The summary was refreshing ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ Kongjwi needs to win this

[theqoo] MIN HEEJIN'S STATEMENT

Hello, this is Min Hee-jin.

Despite repeatedly stating that I no longer wish to be involved in exhausting and tiresome matters, there have been continuous attacks involving distortion and falsehoods. I am correcting the record now.

Even though I have already provided a polite official stance on Dispatch's false reporting, and despite my efforts to resolve the situation, I found it necessary to disclose the full details of relevant KakaoTalk conversations through my Instagram story to clarify my position. However, on the 9th at midnight, B posted an article that, coincidentally, aligned with Dispatch’s views, and today B did another interview with JTBC. As I could no longer hold back the details I had been keeping, I am now compelled to present my stance.

Originally, this issue was presumed to have arisen with the intent to find an excuse to pursue my dismissal, regardless of B's involvement. Therefore, I had handled the situation carefully without disclosing all the facts, considering B’s position, which was unintentionally dragged into the matter.

To understand the exact facts, third parties need to be aware of all the details among those involved, which left me no choice but to reveal them. However, revealing these details could also lead to further damage, which made me very frustrated. Nevertheless, I have tried to clarify the facts without exposing the tangled personal matters as much as possible.

However, B suddenly emerged, spreading false information that I had unilaterally favored Deputy Director A and that I was not neutral and objective as a CEO. B’s claims matched Dispatch’s arguments, and B demanded a public apology. This strange flow of events led me to conclude that this was no longer a matter between individuals but required a clear statement of facts. Therefore, I must disclose the details of the situation, and I ask for your understanding.

1. B is not a new employee. With 7 years of experience, B's base salary was 130 million won (excluding incentives), which was the highest salary among Adore members.

2. B was recommended through an acquaintance knowledgeable about HYBE and the entertainment industry (the same recommender who recommended Deputy Director A) and was hired with the purpose of being a business leader and strategic staff member.

3. Despite having no prior experience in the entertainment industry at the time of hiring, B was given a high salary compared to their experience for the following reasons:

- The demands B presented were based on their education and previous job compensation.

- My approach to hiring talent did not consider gender or age as important factors.

- Considering the critical role of a business leader and the urgent need for this role at that time, we decided to meet B's salary expectations despite the lack of experience and skills. This was done to encourage B to demonstrate the capabilities commensurate with their salary.

- There was a belief that if B set a high salary expectation, it would naturally come with the necessary responsibility and skills, as expressed during the interview.

- Additionally, there was a 6-month probation period (HYBE ‘Win Together’) to assess B’s actual abilities and adjust the base salary and incentives according to their performance and skill level.

4. As mentioned, since B was hired with a leadership-level salary, the probation period was crucial.

Despite the high executive salary, B struggled with basic team setup and leadership. From the onboarding period, B made numerous mistakes, including poorly written business emails, requiring Deputy Director A or myself to correct them. Many issues and complaints arose from simple tasks, leading to frequent difficulties in communication and collaboration with other members.

As a result, other members perceived B as a junior staff member due to the unfulfilled expectations. B, recognizing this, struggled but also expressed a desire to report colleagues for violating workplace respect norms even before the Deputy Director A incident, leading us to doubt B’s abilities as a business leader or strategic head.

The separation of personal effort and performance was significant, especially since B was hired with the best treatment among Adore members. Therefore, evaluating performance and results was crucial.

B's performance, regardless of their efforts, was recorded in relevant documents.

5. Nevertheless, recognizing B’s struggles, I wanted to give them a chance. Knowing the issues with Deputy Director D and other members, I asked the newly joined Deputy Director A to lead B.

However, despite the change in leadership, B’s performance issues persisted.

6. At the end of the probation period, B’s evaluation results were not favorable. The 360-degree feedback from colleagues was below average, and considering B’s output compared to their salary and skills, the decision was made that continued employment would be difficult.

This decision was made by other members, and Deputy Director A was responsible for giving the final assessment on B.

7. During the probation evaluation, discussions were held to reduce B’s salary while adjusting their roles and responsibilities (mid-February). B agreed to the salary reduction but did not respond to Deputy Director A’s request to share the duties they were confident about. Shortly after, B expressed their intention to resign (February 28) and subsequently reported Deputy Director A for workplace respect violations (March 6).

B’s report of workplace respect violations included the following:

** 1. Report of SH

Summary: VP A of Adore requested my attendance at a dinner with an advertiser, which I initially thought was unnecessary. Despite my concerns, I was called to attend because I was a 'young female' representative. I ended up attending the dinner with the advertiser on February 15 in Cheongdam-dong.

[Summary of Meeting Timeline on 2/15]

① The dinner venue was initially planned for Cheongdam Mongjungheon (Chinese restaurant) but was changed to ‘Izakaya Makoto Cheongdam’ at 6 PM due to booking issues.

② On the day of the dinner (2/15), Deputy Director A called me around 5 PM, stating that a meeting had come up and I needed to leave in an hour.

③ The dinner started at 6 PM, and Deputy Director A left around 7 PM. The dinner bill was prepaid by A (link).

④ After Deputy Director A left, I remained alone at the dinner until around 9-10 PM.

⑤ At 10:37 PM, I reported the meeting summary to the group chat upon request from Hee-jin. Hee-jin later questioned the purpose of the dinner and expressed a wish not to have such events in the future (link).

Additionally, during the exit interview with HRBP, B stated that 80% of their resignation reason was due to VP A, and 20% was due to not fitting in with the organization and the decision to reduce their salary by 40%.

(The above information was provided by HYBE HR.)

8. There were several discrepancies in B’s SH report:

ㄱ. Clear Meeting Purpose and Context

- At the time, B was responsible for managing the advertiser. The purpose of the meeting (dinner + store visit) was clearly shared among A, B, and C (a global brand advertiser). Despite B’s expression of being ‘unnecessarily called’, the meeting was prearranged for business discussions.

- B had been managing the brand even before A joined Adore, so it was necessary to follow up on the current status and long-term plans after A’s appointment. B’s initial response was ‘I’m fine with the time,’ but later suggested it might be better for A and the advertiser to dine together. A interpreted B’s response as caution due to past mistakes and not a rejection of the meeting.

- A had previously criticized B for unnecessary meals and inefficient use of time, and B’s cautious response was interpreted as reluctance due to past criticism.

ㄴ. Discrepancies and B’s Irony

- B’s report omitted details. After A left, the dinner ended around 9:30 PM, and the group moved to a nearby showroom for a visit, confirmed by additional receipts.

- However, B’s report inaccurately stated staying alone for dinner until 10 PM. B ordered additional drinks after A left, and testimonies from the advertiser C suggested B was sociable and talked about various topics.

ㄷ. Transparent Venue Selection and Intentional Record Alteration

- The venue selection was transparent. The dinner location was chosen by C in a group chat including B. The change from a Chinese restaurant to an izakaya was due to availability.

- Despite knowing the context, B emphasized ‘alcohol-inclusive’ in their report, distorting the nature of the meal.

ㄹ. Contradictions in Claims

- The claim of ‘young female’ was not consistent with A’s perspective, as there was no concept of ‘young’ relative to salary and experience.

9. B claimed that their poor performance evaluation was an attempt to invalidate their position. The evaluation was conducted by a team including managers, and I was not involved in this process.

B had previously expressed dissatisfaction with their role and salary during a business trip and had shown anticipation for the new Deputy Director A.

10. To clarify the timeline, B reported resignation on March 2 after the performance and treatment evaluation on February 22, and made the SH and workplace bullying reports on March 6.

Comparing the sensational claims with omitted details, B’s report contained significant distortions, making it hard to fully believe.

11. The investigation and conclusion of the incident were handled entirely by HYBE HR. I was guided not to communicate directly with B until the investigation was complete. The case was concluded as unfounded, and the matter was resolved with a reconciliation between A and B.

In situations where opposing claims are at play, judgments should be based on objective factual clues as much as possible.

As soon as I received relevant information in my capacity as CEO, I followed the guideline that prevents me from contacting the informant directly. Instead, I verified the facts with Advertiser C, who was present with Deputy Director A, the person involved.

Given the context, timing, and facts, there were indeed several puzzling and concerning aspects. Particularly because A and B had a level of discord that was noticeable to other members, this was more pronounced.

‘ SH’ is an extremely serious issue for individuals and can leave lasting scars, so it should never be handled lightly.

In the current heightened state of gender conflict, it should be avoided from being exploited further, and especially since I am a woman, I regarded it as an issue that should not be dismissed lightly for the sake of hidden and unreported true victims.

Having experienced the hardships of being a woman in the workforce for over 20 years, it is unthinkable for me to differentiate between genders. However, I do not confuse human-to-human issues with gender issues.

In fact, various factors revealed in the comparison were problematic, but despite the high basic salary that was set for the members, and the significant benefits provided through job reassignments and leadership changes despite performance issues, it was evident that B benefited the most. Nevertheless, the report seemed to downplay or omit their role and responsibilities, creating an impression as though they were a powerless new employee.

B presented a confident and independent image during the hiring interview and demanded a high salary, but in work, due to unfamiliarity with the industry and incompetence, they consistently required assistance from others. This led to the suggestion of a salary cut.

Therefore, I was greatly disappointed and even frightened by B's intentionality.

After HYBE HR concluded the investigation with no wrongdoing, I felt a chill when B contacted me before their departure. However, I wanted to hear B's side of the story.

Since the matter was concluded, I didn’t necessarily have to take further action. Despite my disappointment and anger, I reconsidered and checked if there was anything I might have missed about B’s situation until the end.

Listening to B's account and the chat contents revealed that B had meticulously verified both sides from their perspective.

Ultimately, I realized that the root of the problem lay in accumulated grievances, and I felt both disdain and sympathy for the two individuals involved. After their reconciliation, I wanted to offer B another opportunity and explored various ways to do so, but B decided to resign.

I have known both A and B for a relatively short time, so there is no reason for me to show bias as CEO.

If someone questions whether my actions were influenced by B's deputy role, I would ask why, in the first place, I allowed B a higher salary than Deputy Director A?

Conversely, assuming that a high salary meant favoritism is also a juvenile logic.

As CEO and a third party, my only concern was to ensure no one was unjustly treated, and I hoped for mutual understanding and good relations.

Even as a third party, just understanding the facts apart from conflicting claims shows that B’s claims are entirely off. How can this be explained?

If this is true, what is the nature of B's attempt to invalidate the situation?

It is as absurd as the false claim of a power grab.

I was merely informed and did not intervene in the investigation; what attempts could possibly have been made?

Who is B attacking by spreading such strange claims about me, a third party who is not even involved in the case?

The current issues are oddly mixed.

Especially the indiscriminate use of provocative terms like “ SH” and “cover-up” makes it seem like exaggerated accusations similar to “power grab” that cannot be submitted to court. The essence and facts are being diluted and inflated to appear as if there is a grand conspiracy.

It is quite suspicious that despite not being a party to the controversy, I am being dragged into it with all the blame directed at me.

It is also highly suspicious that B appeared at a time when HYBE was already under intense media scrutiny, and specifically targeted me, who had mediated the issue, asking for a public apology.

I heard that B’s newly created account posted something at midnight, which was immediately spread online.

In fact, I received the news through acquaintances at 12:01 a.m. and contacted B immediately.

B claimed that my public chat content was edited and false, so I asked for clarification on what was edited and what was false. However, B wanted to explain through chat rather than a call.

In today’s interview, I saw mentions of 77 chat messages. My style of sending multiple short messages was used against me, portraying it as if I were putting pressure with meaningless content. If I didn’t respond, it would be criticized as ignoring the matter.

After sending my opinion, I received a long response from B about 12 hours later.

The tone of B's response was unusual, with terms like ‘repeatedly refusing severe warnings’ and ‘giving another chance,’ which seemed more mature than B's usual tone. The threatening tone and choice of words, including fabricated content, were chilling and surprising.

If B had expressed dissatisfaction with vulgar language, it might have been understandable. However, B was upset not by vulgarity but by my perceived bias, which was unfortunate. Even more surprisingly, B cited email conversations between me and HYBE that I had no knowledge of.

When I asked about the suspicious ‘opportunity’ expression, B said:

“It was to offer you a chance to apologize in the manner you usually use when dealing with the media.”

B insisted on a public apology identical to the Dispatch claims through my Instagram story.

As you know, I used Instagram stories only once, and I’m not sure if this is the attitude of someone genuinely seeking an apology.

The threatening comment that if I didn’t apologize in the same way as that media claim, actions would be taken, seemed uncharacteristic of B.

Moreover, this threat materialized today. This afternoon, I was contacted by JTBC for a comment on B’s related interview, and shortly after, an unexpected article from Sports Today appeared, claiming that Deputy Director A’s SH cover-up was related to a power grab by A. The journalist who wrote the article had previously written negative articles about me.

There is a strong suspicion that there is a buildup for an attack, and this raises questions about whether such a thing is possible for an individual alone.

Even now, there are various pressures to dismiss me.

Therefore, it is suspected that these activities are being carried out as a pretext for something.

Regarding the absurd speculation that I intervened in the investigation and protected Deputy Director A, B’s post from the 9th includes inconsistencies in tense and narrative:

- On page 2, it says “from the moment the report was made ~ intervened in the investigation,” and on page 7, “from the investigation stage ~ involved and judged as suspicious,” and again “even before the investigation started ~ seems suspicious.”

The statements and tenses do not match, and there is a clear sign of hurried retreat and incoherence.

It seems that B cannot even maintain the seriousness of the issue they themselves described, and I wonder if the intent or purpose of the statement is truly theirs.

What I expected from B was to perform their duties to the best of their ability and deliver results commensurate with their salary, not amateur claims like having been a fan or spending tens of thousands at the NewJeans shop or sending affectionate messages or pledging loyalty.

I have also sent affectionate messages to B multiple times.

Moreover, the content of B’s lengthy messages was a complaint and accusation against Deputy Director A and other members, not such personal sentiments.

Although it was frustrating, I had tried to protect B and convey the facts without revealing too much detail. However, after reading B’s incoherent statement on the 9th and receiving an unusual response, I felt the care and consideration I had for B was deeply painful.

Being a ‘victim’ is not a concept that arises just by claiming it.

If it were that simple, everyone would be a ‘victim’ for their own reasons.

B admitted to A and me that they were ‘cowardly and extreme’ after the case was concluded and thanked us for facilitating reconciliation.

False reporting due to anger is a frightening thing that can ruin other people's lives.

Just as one’s own life is valuable, one must recognize that others’ lives are also valuable.

The salary B received was that of a middle management position in a large corporation.

B needs to reflect on their performance and the concept of ‘responsibility.’

Due to the painful experience with this case, I will think many times more about salary determination in future hiring.

To eliminate any misunderstandings, I am attaching all reports related to workplace harassment and the results of HYBE HR’s investigation.

**2. Workplace Harassment Case**

① Example: Mr. A used his lack of multitasking skills as an excuse to request an unreasonable reporting method from his subordinate. When this was not adhered to, he made emotional and personal attacks without hesitation.

Examples of personal attacks: “This is just an excuse ㅜㅜ I’ll stop talking about it ㅜㅜㅜㅜ Coaching is impossible ㅠㅠㅠㅠ”

② Example: A subordinate suggested to a senior manager that the remarks just made be communicated to the team leaders in the team leader meeting. This suggestion was unnecessarily interpreted in an exaggerated manner, leading to personal attacks.

Examples of personal attacks: “Why are you talking about things I’ve asked you to do? Why are you advising me? I think that’s how it is,” “You keep talking unnecessarily, so you get scolded by me,” “My weekend time is precious too. If you talk, I have to read it and write it down again.”

③ Example: During the process of adjusting the resignation date, there was an insistence on a specific date (March 22). When this could not be enforced, personal attacks were made, calling it an inconvenience. (Since the end date for Win Together was March 17, it was considered appropriate to resign on March 18, and since there was a proposal to cut the salary by more than 40% from March 18, it was stated as March 18.)

Example of personal attack: Insisting on a resignation date of “March 22.” When this was contested, the response was, “The company said the 29th, so if you can’t accept that, it has to be the 22nd.”

“It’s also an inconvenience for me. Do you know? Do you understand? It’s two inconveniences for me,” which was a coercive remark. The tone and the term ‘inconvenience’ are inappropriate.

④ Other issues: There were also issues such as using a loud and annoyed tone in the shared office space, or using a nervous tone during meetings.

**March 14, 2024 (Thursday) 6:56 PM**

Hello Heejin,

Regarding the RW report shared last week, an investigation was conducted, and it has been determined that “it is difficult to acknowledge the case as workplace SH or workplace harassment.”

However, it seems that there were inappropriate remarks and actions from the Label VP, so I suggest that you, as the CEO, issue a verbal warning.

Please refer to the attached file (link) for detailed information, and let me know if you have any further questions.

(This is the information provided by HYBE HR)

I ask again:

- How will you explain the falsehoods in B's SH report?

- Since the disciplinary action against Deputy A was decided by HYBE, which bears primary responsibility, why are you targeting me through the media?

- Also, it is appropriate to reprimand those who illegally leaked materials to Dispatch. Why am I being targeted over this?

If B had not fabricated false claims in the SH report, I would not have felt disappointed with B.

- Why do you insist on believing the illegally leaked and reconstructed chat logs, while claiming that the original chat logs exchanged between us are fabricated?

- From whom did B obtain the unknown materials?

The high salary assigned to B was my decision as a fellow woman.

If gender and tenure were to be considered, such treatment would not have been possible.

What was unfair for B? Did someone prevent her from using her vacation?

If that’s the case, is it acceptable to expect poor output despite a high salary? Please consider this carefully.

Personal emotions are individual, and it is possible that some might misunderstand B as having received special treatment. What can be said about such misunderstandings if they arise?

Despite being a younger woman with lower tenure compared to the middle-aged male deputies, and having set a high salary based on expectations of excellent performance, does this mean that women are being overly protected? Does this make me a superior feminist?

The person B should apologize to is not me, but those who illegally obtained, fabricated, and provided the materials to Dispatch.

It is those who distorted and exaggerated unnecessary information that B had no need to know, continually dragging B into sordid situations.

Whether it is voluntary or not, B has engaged in defamation by spreading false information. I hope that B will not further involve herself in this complicated issue.

No one is insignificant in this world.

Who is currently undergoing secondary, tertiary, and further harassment with their real names exposed?

I have tried my best to avoid detailing this situation, but as all involved are represented by initials for protection, I wonder why I am being dragged into a ridiculous situation I was not directly involved in, subjected to intense scrutiny, and caught in the quagmire of justifying myself.

Those who distort facts to damage my image and manipulate timing to involve others, inciting and escalating public outrage, should immediately cease their inhumane actions.

original post: here

1. Her personality seems to hardly fit that of a CEO

There are lots of incompetent employees in the first place,

On the surface, all you need to say is that you're sorry and try to resolve things nicely, you don't want to end up in the labor office ;;

2. That's... What they considered SH...?

3. How is this considered SH?

4. F*ck this was so f*cking long, I'm not reading

5. I can't support Min Hee-jin, But it’s annoying when someone with a salary over 100 million won talks about meetings in places with alcohol and acts as if they're a young female victim. It seems like Min Hee-jin is really good at her job, given how smoothly she writes those long texts

6. Min Hee-jin fighting

7. This is too long

8. Min Hee-jin is indeed weird, but I wouldn't call this SH either...

9. Why are people still bullsh*tting with the "Min Hee-jin fighting'?

10. There's clearly a victim, but people are still going "Min Hee-jin fighting" wow ㅋㅋㅋ

New Post

✉ PC Stories