Things need to be changed in the workplace – (3)  

This is Part 3 of this article. Read Part 2 of this article here.

*Note:
1. Throughout the article, the phrase “the business field” or “the business world” means the whole society where people join the workforce. It does NOT only represent people who work in a business-type position, but also every people who work in office jobs.
2. Throughout the article, “Boss” only refers to the CEO or the owner of the company; it does not refer to the “Supervisor” who is not a CEO but manages some employees. “Boss” and “Supervisor” is different in the article as above describes.
3. Throughout the article, “employers” is referred to the boss, hiring manager, and HR. It is NOT only referred to as a boss or an owner of a company.
4. When a situation in the article is not specifically pointed to as a “situation in Taiwan”, such a situation happens in the West, too.

3. Wear many hats v.s the Salary you get

A CEO, Gary Vaynerchuk said on his Facebook, “Bosses get employees as if they’re there to serve them, it’s fucking crazy….You have people that own companies saying ‘I expect my people to work the way I work’, I’m like ‘are you giving them the same money?’ The fuck are you talking about? ” A person replied, “Although I agree, instead of bitching, what is your take on this? What is the solution? ^[1]https://www.facebook.com/100044531315333/posts/538920807602292/?app=fbl ” I agree with Gary’s point but I think his case shouldn’t apply to all of the cases, and I don’t agree with the replier’s comment.

First, start with the replier’s comment. Gary’s opinion is very clear. To this replier and people who agree with this replier: Why don’t you ask bosses either not to expect employees to work the way these bosses work or give employees the same money? More importantly (although it’s irrelevant to the article), any person can criticize anything as long as the criticism is “specific” instead of ambiguous. It’s up to readers or listeners to decide whether a specific criticism makes sense or not. An individual who criticizes doesn’t need to provide a solution. It’s that experts who read these specific criticisms should come up with a solution and make improvements with their expertise. If an individual who criticizes provides a solution, that’s certainly great; this indicates that the individual is better than others. But if there isn’t a solution, it’s okay, as well.

Second, the case that Gary described actually covers a very broad situation. It includes cases of wearing many hats happening in many companies. Is wearing many hats always an indicator representing a company is bad? Some people will say yes; some people will say no. My answer is NO, it isn’t always bad in every case. Why? Because that some small-size companies just need people to work in multiple functions, and in some of such small companies, the amount of work in each function assigned to an employee may not be as much as the amount of work assigned to an employee who specialized in doing a particular function of work in a big company.

Whether it’s an indicator representing a company is bad or not – It could be either case, it depends on whether the requirement of wearing many hats is reasonable. So how you should identify whether it is reasonable or not? I suggest three points:

One, which is the easiest one. Is the amount of work assigned to you too much that requires work overtime because of wearing many hats? If yes, this is certainly a sign of a bad company, even in small companies. This should be the case that you can refer to Gary’s view. Time changed. To Employers: Employees are not your slaves. Stop requiring employees to work overtime as you do because you don’t give them money as much as the money you give to yourself. On the contrary, if you don’t have to work overtime, why don’t you do the work? Part of your responsibility as an employee is to provide some work during working hours, isn’t it?
There are two cases needed to be considered.
The first one is work efficiency. Sometimes it could be the way you work is not efficient, so it leads to working overtime. You need to evaluate whether you have this problem. If you have such a problem, you can consult with your supervisor or experienced colleagues about how a specific work can be done more efficiently, or you can also figure it out on your own.
The second case is the level of industriousness. This case more often happens in Taiwanese and Chinese, as one characteristic of the majority of Taiwanese and Chinese is being industrious in doing work. I often see some Taiwanese discussing that the U.S. supervisors say the work speed of Taiwanese is faster than that of Americans; it is possibly due to the characteristic of industriousness among many Taiwanese. If you are such a person, perhaps the amount of work assigned to you is still too much, despite you don’t work overtime. In this case, the job still shouldn’t be acceptable. It could be difficult to evaluate whether it’s because you are too industrious, as many Taiwanese and Chinese are very naturally industrious in doing work. Still, I suggest you think about the situation when you work: Are you often in a busy mode that you can’t have a little rest every day? Especially in a busy mode where you have to be very intense all the time every day in order to complete all of the work. If you are in either busy mode or the above two, the amount of your work is too much. As I said, this still shouldn’t be acceptable despite you don’t work overtime. You can evaluate based on this question, although the evaluation will still be difficult.
By the way, just to be clear, working fast or being industrious doesn’t mean working efficiently. Many people work very fast or are very industrious but don’t work efficiently. The two cases have to be distinguished.

Two, is the amount of work in other functions which is not the job you apply for too much to a point that the majority of your work is not about the job you apply for, it’s about other job functions? For example, if you apply for and get hired for a procurement position, but the majority of work assigned to you is about administration work which an office administrator should do, not purchasing items and negotiating prices for the company, this is proof that it’s a bad job or a bad company, because you may not get the necessary work that is relevant to your procurement job, therefore negatively impact your career development in procurement. However, if only part of the job is about those office administration work, the majority of work assigned to you is still about procurement, and you don’t work overtime because of wearing multiple hats, you either accept it or leave for a rich company that has money to hire people for multiple job types. Many people don’t know how to identify before reading this article. Therefore, although I do see some people whose majority of the work is not the job they apply for; more often, I see many people whose majority of work is about the job they apply for and who don’t work overtime, but they are complaining about they are wearing many hats.

Three, are the characteristics of other job functions assigned to you “indeed” not helpful for your career at all? This point is optional (Meaning: You can choose to use this point to evaluate, or you can choose to not use this point to evaluate, it depends on yourself), and it also depends on the previous two factors. Sometimes wearing multiple hats can help employees grow up and become better professionals. Joe Chang, CEO of a management company in Taiwan, indicates in his article that many of his professional skills were built up by wearing many hats during the time he worked for a small company, and he was promoted faster within that small company than people in other companies do because of that. He said he still utilizes many of those skills until now. Some people often say many bosses always assign many jobs by saying “fine word butter no parsnip” ( in other words, write rubber checks ). Yes, it’s true that some bosses often do that, especially many bosses in Taiwan. Yet, I would say that even if you don’t get promoted by wearing many hats, you still build up a lot of great experience and professional skills as Joe did. You can utilize them in the next company you work for and that can be very helpful for your career. I believe many experienced professionals have similar experiences and outcomes. In addition, Joe also said while a professional with both great background and great abilities can have good achievements in a big company, an individual who lacks abilities, isn’t smart, and hope people tell him/her what to do is more suitable to stay in a big company that has a clear division of work and rule than in a small company ^[2]https://www.darencademy.com/article/view/id/16562 . Well said. So sometimes you should evaluate based on your abilities and your personal choice of your career. This article of him is great; I will suggest everyone read it.
With that being said, although I agree with Joe’s perspective, I don’t think it applies to every case. So let me provide my perspective on how to identify whether a job should be acceptable or not.
Start with an example. If you are a software engineer who works for a small company, you may also be assigned the work of an IT professional, such as managing the email of employees and different permissions for using software for each employee. Despite that many employees often complain about wearing many hats in this case, this should be acceptable. Why? Because small companies don’t have too much money to hire multiple professionals. Again, if the amount of such work isn’t a lot and doesn’t make you work overtime, why don’t you do it? Part of your responsibility as an employee is to provide some work during working hours, isn’t it? Furthermore, an IT job is also a specialty and you can learn something by doing that, despite it’s not the job you get hired for. In addition, if the other job function assigned to you is a relevant job related to the job you are hired for, that’s even better. For instance, in many big companies, there is a clear division of work between software engineers and Dev Ops. Software engineers are only responsible for developing and maintaining software. Dev Ops engineers are the ones who do the work related to the operation of software ^[3]https://www.indeed.com/hire/c/info/devops-engineer . If you are a software engineer who works for a small company, you may also need to do Dev Ops’s work on your own. But meanwhile, you also build experience and professional skills in another profession; that may be helpful in the future. The two cases are as the same as Joe’s point of building up experience in the above. On the other hand, suppose you are a Sales but get assigned with a lot of office administration work, since an administrative assistant is just a highly replaceable job, doing a lot of office administration work won’t help your career if you are an aspiring individual who looks for career development with a certain specialty. Suppose the amount of your work is too much that requires you to work overtime, or the amount of work of office administration is the majority of your work, I believe it’s a sign or even proof of a bad company or of a hiring manager based on Point One and Two in the above.

That said, if neither of the three points is true (for example, you don’t work overtime), though it will be an acceptable job, you still can choose not to accept it. There is nothing wrong with that. One case is that you just don’t like wearing many hats – that’s okay. It will depend on your personal choice of choosing which type of job – a job wearing many hats or a job that specializes in one particular job, and it will not be your employer’s fault for asking you to wear many hats. Another possible case is that you just don’t like the other job function assigned to you. For instance, you are a Procurement specialist, and you are assigned a bit of office administration work. You still mostly do jobs regarding procurement and you don’t work overtime, but you hate the office administration works. If you want to leave because of that, that’s okay, too. Everyone has something he/she doesn’t like. Same, it will not be your employer’s fault, but it is also not your fault if you want to leave.
Just to emphasize, employers and you have to discuss clearly during the interview what other types of jobs may be assigned to you. Some employers don’t; improve it if you are one of them. It doesn’t have to be very complete and detailed to the extent that only mentioned tasks are your work – which many people expect nowadays though, but the other types of jobs that may be assigned have to be mentioned generally and still with a few examples. For example, an employer can say, “Except for Producument jobs, I will assign you some Sales tasks, such as XXX.” On the other hand, still, sometimes works are unexpected, you can’t expect your boss/supervisors will think of every possible work relevant to the other job functions assigned to you that may come up. Suppose when the amount of other types of work becomes bigger, certainly that you can suggest your boss hire someone who specializes in doing such work. Therefore, it’s up to you to decide whether you want that job or not. If you don’t leave out for some reason but you don’t like other jobs assigned to you, you shouldn’t complain about your boss/supervisor. It’s you choose to accept the job when assigned jobs are mentioned clearly; it’s you choose not to leave. Suppose there are other reasons that make you can’t leave, SAME: Since your boss/supervisor isn’t the one who causes those reasons, you shouldn’t complain about your boss/supervisor assigning you such tasks, either.

Employees can evaluate your job based on the above three points I provide; employers should review the jobs you are offering based on them, too.

4. Accept criticisms and take up responsibilities when they belong to you

This “Accept-criticisms” point has been already well-known for a long time, but unfortunately, only a few people actually do it in either the Western world or the Eastern world. In the Western world, many people suggest the “Sandwiches” method, which is about complimenting the advantages of a work first, and criticizing the disadvantages of a work later – This method isn’t quite often used in Taiwan. This certainly is a very great method when an employee does a work with heart and therefore results in some advantages, but in some cases, where an employee doesn’t do a work with heart, there could be some very basic mistakes that shouldn’t make repeatedly, or there could be no advantage at all. In such cases, I don’t think the “Sandwidthes” method is necessary; it is just delaying an employee’s grow up in accepting criticisms.

As I said, only a few people actually accept criticisms. You may be one of the people who are reluctant in accepting criticisms and apologizing. There are some articles talking about “Why people don’t apologize”; I will say it’s mostly just because many people are egotistical, arrogant, and selfish. Why there is a “selfish”? Because such people don’t care what other people’s feeling is when he/she doesn’t accept criticisms and don’t apologize, you are one of them if you don’t accept criticisms and apologize. Most of us were taught to say “Please, thank you, and sorry” the three words when we are children. If children are taught in this way and be criticized by their teachers when they don’t say “Sorry” and “Thank you”, shouldn’t you as an “adult” should proactively accept criticisms, apologize, and say “Thank you” to someone who provides a “constructive” / “specific” criticism to you?

In addition, some people apologize but never change. This is as bad as people who don’t apologize because this shows your apology isn’t real. Just correct it: Apologize, fix the mistake if you can, and “NO LONGER” make the same mistake again. Nevertheless, there are some mistakes that are difficult to correct as it is more about a person’s disadvantage. You have to give people time and allow several “same” or “similar” mistakes to recur. If time passes and many same mistakes have been pointed out, but the person still makes the same mistake, such a person is indeed the person that doesn’t want to correct the mistake. In a personal relationship, you can leave as far away from this person as possible and move on. At work, it depends on whether it impacts the work and the severity of a mistake. If it doesn’t impact work, why do you care? Just leave this person away as far as possible and do not make friends with him. If it does impact work, you can either not promote him/her or fire him/her depending on the severity of a mistake.

In conclusion, at work, I suggest bosses and supervisors stop promoting people who don’t apologize and correct their mistakes and fire some people who don’t correct their mistakes if necessary.

There are indeed some exceptions. In some cases, which often happened in Taiwan but not in the U.S., many supervisors or bosses often criticize an employee’s work without specifically pointing out where the problem is. For instance, they criticize an employee’s proposal ( or an employee’s completed work ), but without specifically pointing out why this proposal is bad ( or why this work is done badly), or not feasible. They will just say “We didn’t do that in this way in the past”. There are many more cases in Taiwan where supervisors and bosses don’t even say “We didn’t do that in this way in the past”; they just say the work is done badly without telling subordinates why they think it’s done badly. Many Taiwanese don’t know the reasons and just feel the supervisors and bosses aren’t willing to listen to young employees’ suggestions and are too fogyish. That’s indeed part of the reason. But let me teach you, the other part of the reason is that these supervisors and bosses don’t know why work is done badly or not feasible; they don’t have enough specialties to identify where the problem is; they just feel it’s bad. Many supervisors and bosses in Taiwan learned a certain way to work in a specific industry in the past without knowing why doing specific work in a specific way. They weren’t taught relevant professional knowledge in school and in the companies they work for, and they didn’t improve relevant knowledge on their own, either (Or they were taught relevant knowledge in school, but their abilities aren’t good, so they don’t know how to apply it). Isn’t many of you also share similar experiences and didn’t improve relevant knowledge on your own, either? Hence, when they work, they follow the old way because that’s the only way they know it works, and they don’t have enough specialties to identify why a new proposal is good or bad ( Or whether a work is done well or bad ). If you don’t improve relevant knowledge on your own, aren’t you the same as them that you can’t identify whether a new proposal provided by a younger employee is good or bad ( Or whether work done by a younger employee is good or bad )?

There is someone who is a cook I encountered on Youtube said, ” I was taught by experienced cooks to make a specific dessert in a specific way. When I ask the experienced cook why a certain step must be done in this way, he can’t answer it. After I watch this video, I find out that that specific step doesn’t need to be done in that way; it depends on some specific circumstances.” His experience is actually similar to many Taiwanese’s, despite that many Taiwanese never know why, such as your supervisors or bosses, and many of you. So I tell this cook, “Many experienced cooks in Western countries all know why a specific step has to be done in that way. If you watch Masterchef Australia, you will find that the judges who are a chef or food critics often specifically point out what the problem is when they dislike a dish. Sadly such a cook isn’t a lot in Taiwan. I suggest you read relevant books and online materials to learn why instead of asking chefs in Taiwan if they can’t answer.” This suggestion of mine can also be applied to the case of many Taiwanese, no matter which industry you are in: Read books and online materials to learn relevant knowledge of your work. Then you will know whether your proposal is bad or not ( Or whether you did the work badly or not ), why it’s bad, and where the problem is if it’s bad. In addition, I want to give you one word that a former Masterchef Australia judge George Calombaris says and may be helpful for you: To determine whether an innovative dish is good or bad, I ask myself “Is it delicious?” If yes, why not? ( Here I probably rephrased his word, as I may have forgotten what exactly he said in the show. But the meaning of what he said is as same as this one.) Look how he still open-mind is when he is a senior and much-experienced chef. To apply such a spirit in the business world, bosses, supervisors, and employees, when an innovative proposal is made, ask yourself, “can this proposal solve the problem the company or the customer needs to be solved?” If yes, why not? Certainly, in the business world, there will be more factors needed to be considered, but this question is one of the key factors that you can ask yourself to determine whether an innovative proposal is good.

My points are as the following:
First, when someone or you yourself criticize your work, you have to see if he/she specifically points out where the problem is. Furthermore, when a criticism clearly points out where/what the problem is, you need to think if the criticism makes sense or not on your own. If a critic specifically points out where/what the problem is and the criticism makes sense, it’s you as an “adult” who should accept such criticism. If a critic specifically points out where/what the problem is but you don’t think the criticism makes sense, certainly you can ignore it. If a critic specifically doesn’t point out where/what the problem is, certainly you don’t have to care about what the critic says, as he/she isn’t even able to tell why he/she doesn’t like it and what or where the problem is. That said, just because a supervisor is too fogyish to accept your proposal ( or your completed work )or a supervisor can’t tell why he/she doesn’t like your proposal doesn’t mean that your proposal ( or your completed work ) has no problem. It’s simply about you unfortunately having to figure out what the problem is on your own when you haven’t become an experienced professional. You, unfortunately, are in such a bad environment and have to learn on your own instead of consulting with your supervisor and senior colleagues. Many of such people who don’t know where/what the problem already becomes junior or mid-level supervisors, so that will also be a problem for many experienced professionals in Tawan, not only freshmen. What’s more, part of the responsibilities of learning should always be yours, not your supervisor’s. You can’t rely on other people to teach you everything instead of learning on your own. Many Westerners often read books or sign up for courses to strengthen professional skills on their own, but such an ethos isn’t common in Taiwan. In addition, if you and your peers improve, the next generation will have a better work environment, because they will have you and people like you being their supervisors and specifically pointing out what or where their problem is. To be clear, still, the next generation will still need to learn something on their own instead of relying on others.

Second, to supervisors or senior employees who don’t possess enough specialty to identify what is wrong and where is wrong, remember this: If you can’t identify what or where is wrong in a subordinate’s work and the work is about the function you work in, it’s also your problem of not having enough specialty in your work function. You should improve your specialty on your own. If the subordinate’s work is about another function you don’t work in, and therefore you can’t identify what or where is wrong, it’s okay because you don’t have to possess every specialty. However, since your company lets your subordinate and you who aren’t hired as positions in that job function do the work your subordinate is doing – let you two wearing many hats, your company is probably a small company that hasn’t grown up to a size that requires specialized professionals to do some of the specific work. Why not let your subordinates exert their abilities? Sometimes it’s about you don’t know whether a proposal is good or not ( or don’t know whether a job is done well or not ) because you can’t identify if there is a disadvantage. Since you don’t know if a proposal is good ( or if a job is done well ), it could also be indeed good. The company you work for hasn’t grown up to a bigger size, do a risk assessment and take some small or medium risks, let your subordinates exert their abilities, and accept that sometimes there may be failures. If you take away their jobs and do that work on your own, since it’s not about your specialty, you may fail, too. Suppose you have something you care about, you can point out what you care about before your subordinate start on that proposal/work or review your subordinate’s proposal/work, point out what part and why is wrong, and maybe provide some suggestions if you can after that proposal is done. So why do you care whether your subordinates fail but you don’t care whether you fail when both of you can do something on things you care about on the proposal/work? What makes you feel the proposal/work done by you must be better than the one done by your subordinate? If you can’t tell whether a proposal is good ( or whether a job is done well ), it could also be good. If you can tell, why not just speak out about what part and why is wrong? Don’t know how to tell? Then there is a problem with your expression ability. Improve it instead of taking away your subordinate’s job. Some people will say it’s too ideal when reading this Second point. No, it’s not too ideal at all. It’s you having a problem with your reading skill. Again, since it’s not about your specialty, you may fail, too. Read the sentences from “Suppose you have something you care about” to “Improve it instead of taking away….” again.
No need to care whether a subordinate will fail or not. Do a risk assessment, take some small or medium risks, and let your subordinates exert their abilities. If you don’t know how to do a risk assessment, it’s your problem that you don’t learn that knowledge on your own as a supervisor. Improve it.

Read the next part: Part 4 of this article here.

If you like this article, please share the article to your social media page, so my article can be accessed to more people. 
Please also follow me on social media by clicking the links at below, so my latest articles can be reached out to you.
Follow My Social Media: Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin

Reproduction of the article without permission is prohibited.

Chrissy Slora

The articles published in this website are all written by Chrissy Slora. Chrissy Slora aims to make people learn about how the world can be better and provide her intelligent and wise insight by writing about various topics from technology to issues happening in the world. Follow her on social media: Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin