Samsung Electronics, which leads South Korea's semiconductor industry, is experiencing a downturn in the rapidly changing semiconductor market driven by the artificial intelligence (AI) boom. In the second quarter of this year, the company suffered a "performance shock" with poor performance in its high-bandwidth memory (HBM) business and huge losses in its foundry business.

Brain drain crisis

Samsung Semiconductor is experiencing a phenomenon of core engineers continuing to leave due to structural problems, including cases and data support.

Outstanding resignation cases

Thermal control expert A (38 years old) obtained a master's and doctoral degree from Stanford University. After joining Samsung Electronics in 2020, he was assigned to an unrelated position and could not use his professional skills. 

He applied for transfer many times but failed, and finally jumped to a global EDA company. Similarly, packaging expert Mr. B (40 years old) worked in the wafer foundry department. 

The team leader came from a software company and knew nothing about the packaging project, which led to the failure of the project. Mr. B had to work under a leader who lacked technical discussions, highlighting the blindness of personnel decisions.

Rising resignation data

The number of employees leaving Samsung Electronics continued to increase, from 6,189 in 2022 to 6,459 in 2023. The sense of crisis intensified, especially masters and doctoral talents left the semiconductor organization department. 

Internal sources pointed out that the resignation wave was concentrated after 2017, when the former chairman Quan Wuxuan retired and the business support special team took over personnel and finance, resulting in the loss of independence and professionalism of the semiconductor department.

Deep-seated reasons for turnover

Resigning engineers generally attribute their failure to demonstrate their expertise: 

For example, Mr. C (38 years old) switched to SK Hynix and pointed out that the leadership lacked a global perspective and delayed problem solving; the burden on existing employees increased, coupled with differences in treatment and lack of promotion opportunities, and they were forced to leave. 

Former engineers diagnosed that the "speed" and "flexibility" required in the era of artificial intelligence have been lost, and engineers have a strong sense of deprivation.

Management structure flaws

Samsung Semiconductor's internal management problems, including leadership, bureaucracy and barriers to innovation, have exacerbated talent loss.

Leadership issues

The leadership generally lacks professional ability: Mr. B's team leader was hired only under the name of "Intel" but did not understand the technology; Mr. C pointed out that the executives or external leaders transferred from the memory department were ignorant of the overall process flow, which led to delays in collaboration. 

Professor D, who was once a responsible researcher at Samsung, said that the organizational culture has not changed in 15 years. Executives need one year to adapt to the business and two years to start projects. The "sustainability" of core research and development has collapsed, and the "don't make trouble" culture is prevalent.

Rigid bureaucracy

Personnel decisions are out of touch with the scene: the human resources department only focuses on KPIs (such as "where to recruit") and does not evaluate professional skills; former engineers criticized that the reporting and financial review processes are complicated, and new projects are often postponed or rejected. 

Cui Yongyuan and other resigned people pointed out that the top-down decision-making system stifles innovation. Although Samsung has advantages in manufacturing, the AI era requires speed and focus, but it is hindered by bureaucratic management.

Lack of innovation motivation

Conservative management hinders growth: The system LSI department has become a mobile AP manufacturer, missing the opportunity to expand into the automotive and IoT fields. When engineers proposed creative projects (such as semiconductor IP development), management only asked them to "submit understandable reports." 

The old reporting culture led to the loss of talent to ARM or Broadcom. Professor Kim Ki-chan of Catholic University concluded that the authorization system collapsed, the reward system (money for performance, promotion for ability) almost disappeared, and the internal bureaucratic team ignored the problem.

Source: Content compiled from chosun

Reference link

https://biz.chosun.com/en/en-it/2025/07/10/JAB5QBYZ25CG3P2MKQORTBDV7I/

View more at EASELINK