Recruiting philosophy

Our applicant test assignments are essentially identical to the real work — aside from coordination with the design and editorial teams.

At a glance, it may look like a simple writing exercise similar to a college essay assignment where the outline is already provided. However, through years of trial and error, we have learned that even producing a clear, well-written article at that level is rare.

It’s often said that the Korean job market is difficult for job seekers — but in our experience, it is equally difficult for employers seeking people who can write with accuracy, logic, and style.

Lessons from earlier applicants

We also experimented with using ChatGPT and other LLMs to replace parts of the writing process. While AI can help with structure and speed, it still struggles to ensure factual precision and natural readability for native audiences. Through this process, we learned that good human writers remain indispensable.

Drawing on that experience, we designed a workflow where productivity and compensation scale directly with individual capability. Our hiring system mirrors our editorial system: rather than relying on a few star journalists, we built a modular structure that allows ordinary, well-trained writers to deliver institutional-quality content. Some have described this as a “conveyor-belt model” — a collaborative production process inspired by manufacturing efficiency, but applied to analytical journalism.

Production-Based Editorial Structure

You can see examples of our production-based workflow in the images below. Applicants who complete the initial assignment will quickly see how their strengths align with our operations.

During the initial training period, most new writers spend about 3–4 hours per article. Those who adapt and remain tend to reduce that time to around 2 hours, and a few have reached 6 articles within 2 hours after mastering the workflow.

Lessons from the Hiring Process

Despite clearly stating that test assignments are required, many applicants still send only automated résumés generated by job platforms. Some even skip mandatory pre-screening questions, which are explicitly designed to assess whether they’ve read the posting.

We receive applications from individuals with prestigious résumés — former journalists from major outlets, civil service exam passers, and master’s or doctoral graduates from top universities. However, we no longer review any submission without the required writing task.

In earlier years, we made the mistake of hiring based purely on credentials or previous experience. Not once did those hires meet our editorial standards. We have since chosen not to repeat that mistake.

In contrast, every applicant who completes the writing task receives feedback, regardless of the outcome. We share our comments on comprehension gaps, stylistic issues, and foreign-word usage, and often provide an edited version of their submission.

We do not respond to texts that are clearly machine-translated or copied directly from domestic media articles. However, if an applicant invests genuine effort into the assignment, we believe it deserves a respectful response. That principle defines our hiring philosophy.

Why Our Process May Feel Demanding

Some people say our recruitment process is too complex or difficult. We understand that sentiment — we never intended to make hiring this elaborate.

Unfortunately, experience has shown that even receiving a properly written, original article is rare. Finding people who demonstrate both competence and integrity is rarer still.

After years of disappointment and repetition of the same hiring failures, we had no choice but to introduce minimum standards for both skill and sincerity.

For capable applicants, these assignments require less than one hour in total. We hope that anyone frustrated by the process can also recognize the frustration that led us to design it this way.