Things need to be changed in the workplace – (4)

This is Part 4 of this article. Read Part 3 of this article by clicking the link.

*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.

5. Promote ( and hire ) employees because they are outstanding and independent, not because they have good degrees or are from a big company. Moreover, don’t promote “Yes Man”

5.1 How to hire the right people?

Many online articles have taught employers how to hire the right people. Often many employers still hire the wrong people. I will provide my points on how to hire the right people, which the writers of many such articles don’t think of.

5.1.1 Don’t hire an employee based on personality, educational background, or experience of working in a big company; hire an employee based on abilities and attitude of work.

In Part 2 of this article, I mention that many employers – bosses, hiring managers, HRs, ask “Personal interest” questions to see whether a candidate is “good to work with”. I point out that it is “irrelevant”. Many employers love to ask this question because they want to decide whether to hire people based on their personalities. These employers hire a candidate simply because they like his/her personality. You have a nice chat with a candidate during an interview, so you hire him/her. Although this situation also occurs in the United States and some Western countries, this situation more often happens and is worse in Taiwan. In my view, it’s wrong. Personality has no relationship with attitude in work, and therefore shouldn’t be used as an indicator of “good to work with”. To find out whether someone is “good to work with”, you have to see his/her attitude at work. For example, being responsible, determination to actually execute one thing, or caring about details to make a work perfect – these are all great attitudes at work or characteristics that a person shows in work. But characteristics in work don’t always mean personality, either – Some personality traits indeed can be as same as attitudes at work; some are not, and many of you hire employees based on such personality traits which are non-relevant to work. Attitude at work will be a more accurate indicator. More importantly, these characteristics have nothing to do with whether someone’s personality makes you feel pleasant or not. Very often, many hiring managers hire candidates who hiring managers like based on their personal preferences – most hiring managers’ reason is “That candidate’s personality is good”, but those candidates actually aren’t capable of doing the job or have bad work attitudes. Many good candidates have been missed out because of that. Let me ask you: If there is a software engineer whose personality makes you feel he doesn’t seem to be a person that will get along with you, but he/she is really good at developing software – he/she is the top in the field, put salary and other factors aside, will you hire him/her? Most of you will say YES, as long as he/she can develop software for me with his/her exceptional skills, who cares whether we get along or not? So why don’t you treat people in other job types as you do with software engineers? Bosses, hiring managers, and HRs, stop hiring an employee based on personality. Instead, you should evaluate their abilities and attitude toward work. This topic will be discussed more in Part 5 of the article.

As I mentioned, this situation more often happens and is worse in Taiwan. Many Taiwanese supervisors like to hire someone who is lively when they are looking for a young employee or a freshman. Their purpose is to entertain them. If you as a young person make yourself hyper, many Taiwanese supervisors won’t ask you about your experience or skills; you easily get hired because you get hyper. If you as a young person don’t make yourself hyper, many Taiwanese supervisors start to criticize which part you don’t meet the criteria of them, and they won’t hire you. These bosses or supervisors are very unprofessional, and that’s why they hire employees based on whether there is a trait of being lively instead of hiring an employee based on abilities and attitude at work. That’s why many Taiwanese corporations are full of incapable supervisors and incapable employees. This situation more often happens to young female candidates in Taiwan.

Except for personality, you should also stop hiring people based on educational background or hiring people because they have experience working for a big company.

Start with educational background. Some software companies already have hired software engineers based on their abilities instead of degree for a long time ( and perhaps some companies which hire other types of engineers does the same, too ). But most other types of companies don’t do the same for other types of jobs.
Many employers think candidates from a top university must be smart, or candidates with a relevant degree possess more relevant professional skills. That’s part of the reason they hire such candidates. Because the education in a top school may be better, and the candidates themselves may be smarter, candidates who graduated from top universities may indeed have better professional abilities and thinking abilities than other candidates. But it’s just “maybe”, not every candidate from a top university is smart, has better professional abilities, or has a better thinking ability than others. Candidates with no relevant degree may learn relevant professional skills or knowledge on their own, too. You should evaluate candidates based on their past experience, their level of abilities, and their level of thinking ability. In my view, many people including you simply don’t think independently, so you hire someone based on their educational background rather than based on abilities and attitude at work. Not every employee from a top university is better than an employee from a normal university or with no degree; not every candidate with a relevant degree possesses better professional skills and knowledge than other candidates with no relevant degree. Rather than trusting a piece of paper, you should have your own independent thinking and focus on your evaluation of the level of candidates’ specialties and attitudes at work from an interview.

The case regarding the experience of working for a big company is similar. Many people love the ring of light from a big and well-known company such as HP or Google. Employers from small companies hire candidates from big companies often because they think such a candidate learned something from a big company, can apply those experiences to their small companies, and make their companies better. Some of them think a big company has a throughout instructions on what to do in a specific job, so a candidate from a big company will know better what to do in a specific job. Indeed, big companies already establish clear processes and throughout instructions. Candidates from such big companies often learn something valuable from big companies and can apply this knowledge in a small company. However, first, it’s NOT that only people from big companies have abilities and relevant knowledge about what to do in a specific job, what process should be established, or how to establish a process. Second, sometimes you will find that employees from big companies can’t apply their past experience in big companies to your company, and they also don’t know what to do and how to do in their positions as you don’t. That’s because not every process or any work done in a big company is suitable or necessary for every company; even if it’s suitable for your company, it may not be suitable at the moment when your company hasn’t grown up to a certain extent. Nonetheless, your employee from a big and shiny company may doesn’t possess great abilities, thinking abilities, and flexibility to figure out what to do with his/her position. Considering this point and the point that people who are from big companies often have good degrees, here is what you should think: Not always candidates from a big company or with a good degree must be better than other candidates. Again, you should think on your own and hire employees based on your evaluation of their abilities and work attitudes.

5.1.2 Don’t always prefer candidates with experience in the same industry; candidates who hope to change industries may do great in the position, as well.

It’s common. I do see experienced professionals change their careers to another industry. But very often, I also see experienced professionals get rejected because they don’t have relevant experience in the same industry; there is someone else with relevant experience in the same industry, so employers hire that person because they prefer people with experience in the same industry if they have choices. Professionals from the same industry can apply past experience to contribute value to their team, and they don’t need to be taught or trained. That’s many employers’ thoughts. Some employers also believe that different industries have a lot of differences, so even an experienced professional in the same position from a different industry may not be able to apply their experience to a new job in a new industry. Yet, in my view, it’s not always that someone with experience in the same industry is better, and it’s not always the case that an employee from a different industry can’t apply past experience in a new industry, even if the two industries have so much difference.

First, as I said, an employee from a different industry still can apply past experience in a new industry, even if the two industries have so many differences. Discussing the situation that people get rejected when switching industries, one man, David Paskey, has an excellent comment on a Linkedin post with which I agree wholeheartedly. He said, “Too often recruiters or even interviewing team members will disqualify someone on such a technicality simply because they themselves don’t understand the complexity required or how simple the requirement is in reality.There’s a joke that one person with years of varied experience in orange juice marketing didn’t get a lemon juice marketing job because they didn’t have the experience. It’s that short-sightedness in reviewing candidates that misses out on a lot of potentials ^[1]https://www.linkedin.com/posts/destinymmartinez_hiring-leadership-job-activity-6790302537334501376-ccKA?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop .” Well said, although this joke exaggerates the actual situation. Why say it exaggerates the actual situation? Because in the real world, most employers won’t reject a senior individual who is already in a high-ranking position with 10+ years of experience from a different industry without any consideration. They will consider and evaluate such candidates; they won’t reject candidates without any consideration. Some such high-ranking candidates often get hired because of the employer’s consideration. Employers often hire old individuals who are once Directors, VPs, or C-suite executives in different industries to be their same level or higher level positions. Sometimes the position will be in a lower position – A director becomes a manager; a manager becomes a Specialist, but often there are cases that a professional with a high-ranking position such as VP or C-suite ( and sometimes Director ) won’t receive a lower-ranking position offer when he/she switches an industry. Employers know that senior professionals with 10+ years of experience from different industries already possess certain job skills and can apply them to their new jobs in new industries.

As I said, despite the joke’s exaggeration, the man David’s point is well said. Boss, hiring managers, and HRs don’t understand the complexity required or how simple the requirement is in reality, and the joke still reflects the actual situation to a certain extent. In my words, except for the concern of the need to train employees from a different industry, it’s also because the employers don’t understand the level of complexity of a job, so they just hire candidates with experience in the same industry. Employers think hiring such candidates is simpler because they don’t have to possess a risk that an employee from a different industry may not get into the swing of the job. Let me add one point: If you as a supervisor can’t understand what the level of complexity of the job you are hiring is ( sometimes it’s not as complicated as you imagine ), you have a serious problem with your specialty, since you are promoted from the same specialty. If you are a boss who can’t understand the level of complexity of the job, certainly that’s okay. You don’t have to understand every specialty as a boss. However, since you are the “only” one who does the interview and chooses candidates, your company perhaps hasn’t grown up to a certain size – that’s why you pick an employee to do a job that is not the specialty he/she was hired for, not hiring a supervisor with the relevant specialty. Since your company is that small, it probably doesn’t require in-depth knowledge of a particular occupational specialty. Why not give experienced individuals from different industries a chance? “Learning by doing” is the common way we grew up in our career, and possibly so did you. Give them chances.
In addition, if you once encountered an employee from a different industry who can’t get a swing on his/her new job, that’s his/her problem. You can’t conclude because of past experience that every candidate from a different industry can’t do that. There are some exceptions in some specific industries. Some industries require deep relevant knowledge. For instance, the semiconductor industry. Such industries may be difficult for people without technical backgrounds and from different industries to join. But the majority of industries are not in that case. Some candidates from different backgrounds should be able to apply past experience to a certain extent in their new jobs in the majority of industries, and candidates can learn relevant industry knowledge on their own.

Second, discuss employers’ concern that it requires training for experienced employees from different industries. Does an experienced professional from a different industry need training anyway? Yes, it may be. However, the training won’t be required as much as it is required for a freshman. Experienced candidates from different industries may learn by doing and learn after work to get a swing on the jobs. If such an employee who has a different background is capable of doing that, this proves he/she has independent thinking, high flexibility, adaptability, and self-learning ability. In fact, in my view, since not every employee can achieve that, and the way we work and what we do is changing rapidly because of rapid technological development, these are valuable abilities that are needed desperately in the modern business world. Remember the case I mentioned that many marketing professionals learn how to do digital marketing on their own during and after work to catch up with the technology development? I also said these marketing professionals become seasoned marketing professionals because of that, rather than because of being taught by supervisors. In addition, some exceptional candidates may not need training at all. Such candidates possess the exceptional abilities mentioned above. Instead of focusing on relevant experience in the same industry, you should focus on whether a candidate possesses such abilities. It was indeed, as David said, it’s short-sightedness in reviewing candidates, thus missing out on a lot of potentials.

Third, let’s talk about the choice between an experienced professional from the same industry and one from a different industry. I mentioned that employers think professionals from the same industry can apply past experience to contribute value to their team. It’s natural to think that “If I can choose someone with experience in the same industry, I certainly choose that person as I can benefit from he/she when he/she applies his/her past experience to the job. ” However, it isn’t a professional from the same industry always better. Let me provide some examples.

Discussing the cross-industry hiring that Taiwanese companies do not understand, Simon Chen points out an example. Ming Qi Qiu, who once was a news reporter, likes changes and therefore changes positions every 1-2 years on average. She is now the general manager in the Taiwan subsidiary of JINS, Japan’s affordable fashion glasses company. She has achieved good results for the brand one after another and was recently promoted to Managing Director. In the boss’s eyes, Ming Qi Qiu is not “unable to concentrate on one specific type of job”. On the contrary, she is a comprehensive talent who organically reorganizes different functions, and is better able to adapt to the rapid trial and error and constant correction that must be experienced in developing new markets ^[2] … Continue reading. Ming Qi Qiu’s example proves that a professional from a different industry or a different job category can also achieve great results for a company. Ming Qi Qiu was hired as an Associate General Manager of JINS when she interviewed for a Marketing Director position. Although such a case of her getting hired in a higher-ranking position during an interview is not common, many companies have hired high-ranking professionals from different industries to be in the same ranking position. Such an example of hiring a professional from a different industry to a high-ranking position happens in companies in many countries, too. For example, a CEO in A industry goes to be a CEO in B industry. So why do many employers accept this kind of high-ranking hiring but still not accept many professionals who apply for mid-ranking or entry-level positions? It seems odd to me that many employers hire high-ranking professionals from different industries but reject candidates who apply for mid-level or entry-level positions simply because these candidates don’t have experience in the same industry. Employers know that senior individuals from different industries already possess certain job skills and can apply them to their new jobs in new industries. Let me ask you: Why do you think experienced individuals who apply for mid-level or entry-level positions also from different industries aren’t the same and can’t do the same? Indeed, they are not Directors or VPs, but they are not applying for such positions, either. Most of them apply for a manager or a Specialist position. Some employers will say a high-ranking position doesn’t need to do a detailed job and thus doesn’t need training. Again, some candidates can learn and adapt very fast to their detailed job. Let me teach you one thing: Senior high-ranking executives have something to learn in their new positions, too. They also learn by doing and adapt to their new positions which they didn’t do in the past, too. Aren’t you the same when you are promoted? Therefore, it’s basically contempt toward non-senior experienced individuals and excessive worship toward senior high-ranking professionals. In addition, because the case of rejecting a candidate from a different industry more often happen in the application of mid-level or entry-level case, this case probably more often happen in young experienced professionals (Aged under 35 ). It could also be a contempt toward young experienced professionals (Aged under 35 ). Another possible case is that some employers reject every candidate from a different industry, including candidates with a high-ranking position. However, it’s still wrong. The first and second points above can answer the concern of such employers, and the next paragraph will answer more.

Whether an employer who rejects candidates from different industries has contempt toward non-senior professionals with mid-level or entry-level positions or not, such an employer doesn’t know the value and the potential that a candidate from a different industry may bring. As I said, not always a candidate with experience in the same industry is better. In earlier paragraphs, I quote Joe Chang’s article indicating “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 ^[3] https://www.darencademy.com/article/view/id/16562 . The same principle applies to professionals with experience in the same industry. When the way we work changes rapidly, although a professional in the same industry may possess great abilities of thinking, adaptability, and flexibility to adapt to the change, he/she may not possess these abilities, either. Such individuals who don’t possess such abilities will be like some of the professionals from big companies: Need people to teach them what to do and how to do it.

In my view, Ming-Qi Chu possesses the valuable abilities – independent thinking, flexibility, and adaptability – that I mentioned in the second point. What’s more, not only senior professionals, these great abilities can be found in many young professionals, too. In addition, not every person possesses such abilities. Because of that, an experienced professional from the same industry may not possess such abilities. As I said at that point, an employee who is capable of adapting quickly to a new industry is valuable, and such an employee possesses valuable abilities that are needed desperately in the modern business world, while some of the experienced professionals in the same industry don’t possess these abilities. So is it really a professional from the same industry always better? Not really. My suggestion is that, instead of evaluating candidates based on whether they are from the same industry, you should evaluate a candidate based on whether she/he possesses abilities of thinking, adaptability, and flexibility.

By the way, I would like to particularly mention the case in Taiwan. Many bosses and hiring managers in Taiwan think that young individuals from a different industry and with no experience in the same industry will be like a freshman because of the same reason mentioned earlier: Different industries have a lot of differences. Such young individuals still will be needed to teach and train from the beginning as a freshman, even if a young individual did the same position in a different industry. That’s also an incorrect thought.

Firstly, it’s true that many young experienced employees from different industries still need to be taught like a freshman, but not every such young candidate is like them. Such employees who need to be taught like a freshman is the ones who lack independent thinking, flexibility, and adaptability. Such bosses, hiring managers, and HRs in Taiwan who think every young experienced employee must be taught as a freshman lack flexibility and adaptability themselves, too. Hence, they ignore one crucial factor: Definitely not every skill has to be taught. Even if a candidate needs training and can’t adapt to the new industry on his/her own, he/she may still “at least” possess some basic skills that make him/her no need to be treated like a freshman. Email manners; common communication skills to express matters in emails, presentations, and meetings; skills in Excel, Powerpoint, or some common software…etc, such basic skills are acquired in most office jobs that have a specialty. Unless a candidate’s past job is an administrative staff, a Customer Service, or jobs that are not in an office, candidates with some experience in most industries should “at least” possess some basic skills that make them don’t need to be taught as a freshman is. If there is someone who needs to be taught like a freshman, that’s because he/she is lack independent thinking, flexibility, and adaptability.

Secondly, the same situation of high-ranking professionals can explain why this thought is incorrect: Employers won’t view senior high-ranking individuals from different industries as a person who needs to be taught and trained from the very beginning; they only have such a thought toward non-senior individuals from different industries. Employers know that senior individuals from different industries already possess certain job skills and can apply to their new jobs in new industries, so they are not freshmen. Again, why do you think young experienced individuals also from different industries aren’t the same and can’t do the same? A high-ranking position doesn’t need to do the detailed job and thus doesn’t need training? Some candidates can learn by doing and adapt very fast to their detailed job, and senior high-ranking executives have something to learn in their new positions, too. It’s basically a contempt toward non-senior experienced individuals and excessive worship toward senior high-ranking professionals. It’s also probably a contempt toward young experienced individuals to think such young experienced candidates must be like freshmen when they switch industries.

5.1.3 Applicant tracking system technology

Applicant tracking system technology, or ATS, has been used to filter out resumes whose candidates don’t meet certain criteria in some Western countries such as the U.S. for a certain time, and it has received widespread bad feedback from many professionals. A professional on Linkedin commented, “Most candidates do not know all the intricacies of resume formatting that will meet the needs of ATS and as a result, I firmly believe that companies are missing out on incredible talent as a result. If a company chooses to utilize ATS I feel strongly that they should, educate applicants on formatting requirements, make it easier to utilize and streamline submission ( removing duplicate efforts ), and include humans in reviewing applications that may be rejected to ensure applicable candidates are not accidentally screened out. I also agree with other comments on having regular audits of ATS inputs to ensure accuracy and flexibility”. Another person has a similar view, “ATS looks for keywords, so for someone not versed in this, it’s a minefield”. Some persons, while sharing the similar view, don’t think ATS is a good way to filter out candidates. A person wondered, “Someone unemployed will have the time to fill in one hour of paperwork, but is this really the road we want to go on? They don’t feel valued from the start because they have to jump through hoops just to put their application in.” Another person commented, “As these systems encourage conformity you are only attracting a small percentage of applicants that are good in the area of “being hired” but might not be the best at the actual job^[4]https://www.linkedin.com/posts/lizryan_activity-6951034269632786432-HIB9/?utm_source=linkedin_share&utm_medium=android_app ”.

I agree with these person’s views, and I think these comments already explain the disadvantage of using ATS very well. I only want to add one point. As I said in earlier paragraphs, there are some more important abilities in the current era than relevant experience in the same industry or hard skills in the resume. Even if a company has put instructions on how to format requirements, many great candidates who haven’t possess relevant experience still will be missed out. I am not sure how exactly ATS works, but that could be one possibility. Unless ATS can be really smart enough to identify such potential candidates, I don’t think using ATS is good for hiring nor is good for great candidates.

5.2 Who should you promote? Promote candidates because they are outstanding and independent, not because they are your “Yes Man” ( and not because they have good degrees or are from a big company ).

The last topic in Point 5 is particularly about the workplace situation in Taiwan.

5.2.1 The issue of respecting seniority

In the traditional culture of Taiwan, people respect people who are older than themselves a lot, especially the elderly. There is a phrase called “honoring the old and esteeming the wise and virtuous” from a philosopher Confucious in Ancient China is the spirit among many Taiwanese until now. As a result, many Taiwanese deeply respect older individuals, even people who are only 1 or 2 years older than themselves. ( The “respect” here is not about equal respect among people. The “respect” here is more close to “reverence”; someone who is older will have more authority in the mind of the Taiwanese ). In colleges or high schools in Taiwan, Taiwanese students called senior students who are in the next academic year “Senior brother” or “Senior sister”. The same appellations are used in workplaces. While in many Taiwan companies people did call each other’s names despite seniority, junior employees in some Taiwan companies like to call senior employees “Senior brother”, “Senior sister”, or “predecessor”. The situation happens more often in the Police field or the Army Force of Taiwan. Although in everywhere in the world, including the U.S, people respect old senior professionals a lot – For example, in the U.S, an old senior professional will be called “an old timer”, or “a veteran”, the situation in Taiwan that every person who is older or senior to a person himself/herself is reverenced regardless that senior person has years of rich experience, including only 1 or 2 years older or senior; it’s not only about respecting a person with years of rich experience in a specific area – the reasonable situation in many Western countries.

First, respecting individuals with years of rich experience in a specific area is certainly good – that’s because such an individual may possess great abilities to deal with problems happening in their field. However, reverence people purely based on age or seniority even someone who doesn’t have years of rich experience, especially only 1 or 2 years older or senior is not good. What do you reverence him/her for? Not reverencing someone doesn’t mean looking down on or discriminating against someone, or not appreciating someone’s teaching.  It depends on the individual case; why can’t a person be like Westerners and just doesn’t have the thought that elderly or senior employees must be better than himself/herself, but that person still treats older/senior employees with the same equal respect that everyone including peers and younger employees is treated with? Every person should be allowed to do that.
Many Taiwanese will think it’s just an appellation – nothing big deal. It would be nice if it’s indeed just an appellation. However, in many cases, this is not the case. Many Taiwanese bosses and supervisors promote an employee because of seniority, and many Taiwanese including young Taiwanese indeed think that people who are senior are better. But in fact, many supervisors in the U.S. are leading people older or senior than they themselves are. Some employees in the U.S. are promoted because of their abilities, not because of their seniority or age. Likewise, you should reverence a person because of his/her abilities, not because of his/her age. Reverence of a person because of age has caused some problems in the workplace in Taiwan. In addition, I see some Taiwanese complaints that Taiwanese soldiers need to salute and say “Hi, Senior brother” to a soldier who joined the army earlier than him/her when he/she encounters one, even if that senior soldier’s ranking isn’t higher than the soldier who enlisted later. Totally, I agree with this complaint. Why does a soldier have to salute a soldier whose ranking is not higher than him/her, simply because of the number of years spent in the army?

Second, not always senior people’s abilities are better than junior people’s. The same concept applies to the phrase of the philosopher Confucious. “The virtuous” may be someone who is not senior, and the phrase is not only about “honoring the old” but also about “esteeming the wise and virtuous”. It seems most Taiwanese have a wrong thought that the wise and virtuous person must be a senior or old person and ignore having to “esteem the wise and virtuous”. Because of the wrong thought and ignorance, many young Taiwanese whose abilities are good don’t get the respect or reverence they deserve. Certainly, this wrong belief won’t help a company grow but only stagnates a company.

Third, the philosopher Confucious put “the old” and “the wise and virtuous” in equally important positions. In my view, this part is wrong, despite the other parts being good. If the ability of an old person is not good or an old person is not mature enough, while there is a young person who is wise, virtuous, or mature, certainly the young people deserve more respect. The view that every old people deserves to be respected has to change. Some old people can be very immature and stubborn.

I hope this can be changed. One thing that Taiwanese employees need to do in order to change this: Even if you don’t call someone older than you such appellations as “Senior brother”, “Senior sister”, or “predecessor”, you may still reverence such people simply because of age. Anyway, whether or not you call someone older than you these appellations, STOP reverence such people simply because of age. Reverence people because of abilities and wisdom instead.

5.2.2 How you should treat your employees

In this section, I want to particularly discuss one of the work situations in Taiwan: The problem of treating employees in the wrong way. However, the advice here is also useful to some people in the West who encounter less-severe problems of treating employees in the wrong way.

A Taiwanese writes an article on Dcard complaining about “a freshman likes to pretend to be stupid”. She said, “I already taught a freshman I lead how to do some specific jobs. But I found that freshman always ask other people how to do a specific job after finishing everything he is supposed to know how to do ( everything which has been already taught ), or he was able to do a job the last time, but he will ask in the next day how to do that again. When he is scolded because of asking how to do a specific job again, he says he forgets. So he is often scolded privately by old colleagues for those things. Those old colleagues are also laughing at him and saying bad things about him behind his back. Sometimes I can’t stand that, so I often teach him personally…..Because the department was very busy a while ago, work had accumulated a lot. I told the freshmen, ‘it’s okay, you just help me as much as you can. If you don’t know how to do some work, you can skip them. I will deal with them later.’ After then, I found he knows how to do everything, and he did them perfectly. As a result, I asked him seriously: Aren’t you capable of doing this work? Why do you become “don’t know how to do it” when other people are around? He replied to me: No, sometimes I forget Sorry for causing your trouble’ I can’t help but suspect that he is pretending stupid, so the supervisor has not dared to hand over major projects to him so far….”

Many Taiwanese have shared a similar thought regarding these freshmen. “This is what this freshman is brilliant for. Smart people are not being slaves with you ( 6000+ likes )”, “Playing stupid can save you a lot of trouble. You’ll get scolded, but it’s worth it. Plus, you won’t have any people being scheming or having hostility toward you ( 3000+ likes )”, “You’ll get a lot of works if you’re too capable, so better pretend you aren’t capable and do jobs slowly”, “The first time I came out to do a part-time job, I didn’t know anything at all. I didn’t hide my ability. As a result, I was asked to do anything. The boss viewed me as the store manager. But my salary was not higher; it was even lower than other employees. Immediately I left the job and changed jobs. In my next job, even when there was a customer, I still took my time and pretend to be stupid.”
Some people have different opinions, despite not being popular: “Confirm, confirm, and confirm. His word attitude is very positive. It was not okay for you to say these.” Another Taiwanese thinks, “There are villains in the workplace who are afraid of people getting ahead of themselves. He’s a newcomer who the fuck knows you’re all above board. He just as a newcomer would rather be called stupid than offend someone who lacks ability but specializes in petty tricks ^[5] https://www.dcard.tw/f/job/p/237912497 .”

Ok. Before discussing this Dcard article and these comments, I want to discuss another event.
I once encountered a lady on Facebook. She asked, “A young subordinate often provides the wrong information to clients. That’s why I have to write emails to clients on my own every time instead of letting my subordinate write emails to clients. He often complains I don’t let him write emails to clients, but our clients also love the information I provide instead of the one from him. Is there anything wrong with what I do?”
Here is my reply to her: “Providing correct information is a basic thing. If your subordinate can’t even do basic work in an okay manner, he is incompetent in this position. You should just fire him and find someone else. Your company has a loss because you as a supervisor can’t concentrate on doing a supervisor’s job instead of doing his job. This subordinate is wasting both your time and your company’s money.”

First, this lady’s behavior is micro-management. If a subordinate doesn’t know how to do a specific task after teaching, that’s indeed the subordinate’s fault. But in this case: the subordinate can’t even do the “basic” tasks on his own after teaching, why don’t you fire him? Some Taiwanese supervisors have similar behaviors. Although they don’t write emails on their own and some subordinates aren’t like this subordinate who can’t even do the “basic” work correctly, they demand to review every email of subordinates before sending it out even though the training is properly done and already got good results from reviews for a few times. Some Taiwanese supervisors, though they don’t review every minor detail after reviewing every detail a few times and knowing subordinates already master a specific task, often don’t let subordinates do anything that they didn’t teach before. They would do that on their own. If you are one of them, let me ask you: Why don’t you let your subordinates think on their own and exert their abilities? In fact, despite the subordinate, in this case, should be fired instead of complaining, his complaint in this case still makes sense to some extent. Although many Taiwanese who are or were once subordinates don’t realize that, in my view, many Taiwanese supervisors who do these things I mentioned above are micro-managing. Many such Taiwanese supervisors are actually very controlling or like to have a sense of superiority by doing subordinates’ work in front of subordinates or both.
One, supervisors who like to have a sense of superiority by utilizing others are people who pathetically have a strong sense of inferiority. Here is my suggestion: Fix the problem of having inferiority on your own instead of bringing your issue to the workplace and affecting your employees and colleagues.
Two, let me teach you. A supervisor’s job should be about managing a broader picture than the one that subordinates manage, leading, and mentoring subordinates. If you are managing your subordinates by doing their work, reviewing every minor detail after teaching and reviewing a few times, demanding an employee’s work in every step has to be exactly like yours, or doing every work that you didn’t teach instead of letting your subordinate think on their own, you probably don’t know what you should do in your position in addition to being overly controlling. Being a supervisor with a higher salary, you should improve your knowledge of what and how you should do in your position on your own instead of robbing your subordinates’ work to satisfy your pathetic sense of inferiority. Such a way of management is only suitable for some highly-replaceable jobs such as receptionist or entry factory workers; it isn’t suitable for most of the other office jobs. Taiwanese supervisors, if you are one of the supervisors who manage in this way, I suggest you stop having such behaviors and accept my criticisms and suggestions.

Second, let’s discuss the overly controlling issue that many Taiwanese supervisors have. Many of these Taiwanese supervisors believe that employees need detailed training to do their jobs. Certain training for employees, especially freshmen, is definitely still necessary. However, is “detailed” training that teaches you how to do “every” work “step by step” necessary? In my view, not always necessary. This kind of training may be necessary for some repetitive work or highly replaceable jobs, or for some jobs in the last era, especially in big companies where processes are well written. Nonetheless, except for such repetitive work or highly replaceable jobs, this isn’t necessary for many other office jobs nowadays anymore. One, supervisors who think employees should be taught how to do every work is wrong. Many jobs which are not repetitive require independent thinking, flexibility, and adaptability instead of detailed training. Let your subordinates be independent and think on their own. Two, As I said in Part 1 of the article, “we figure out how to use Slack, Zoom, Google Ads, and much new software coming out of the market on our own, instead of getting people to teach us how to use some old software with crap interfaces……We figure out how to do our work on our own because a lot of work is newly created, and did not exist in the past. For example…….Many marketing professionals learn how to do digital marketing on their own during and after work and therefore become seasoned marketing professionals, rather than being taught by supervisors during work, which is an old fashion way. So the company actually spends fewer costs on training new employees, compared to the past. Time changed. Companies should stop their old fashion thinking.” Nevertheless, many old supervisors don’t learn how to use digital tools at work. This situation is especially worse in Taiwan; some Taiwanese supervisors in some Taiwanese banks don’t even know how to use their bank APP which many customers of bank use. I suggest such old supervisors demand themselves to learn and adapt to necessary digital tools on their own instead of overly controlling subordinates’ work or micro-managing their subordinates. ( That said, I am simply talking about general cases including cases that aren’t in banks. Many works in banks are repetitive and therefore still require detailed training. Still, supervisors in banks should learn and adapt to necessary digital tools rather than not even knowing how to use the bank APP. Think about your case on your own with the criteria I suggest. ) Supervisors who think every work has to have detailed training should train themselves about independent thinking, flexibility, adaptability, and self-learning, and they should demand their subordinates do so, too.

Now, let’s back to the first event in the beginning: The article in Dcard that talks about “a freshman likes to pretend to be stupid”.

First, in my view, actually, it’s possible that the freshmen’s behavior also involves the micro-management issue in Taiwan. Although the lady who wrote the article and the old employees in the article didn’t micro-manage the freshmen, the freshmen himself may share similar thoughts with those Taiwanese in the comment. Many old or senior employees have problems of afraid the abilities of young or junior employees are better than theirs. If that’s what the freshman is afraid of, that’s the problem of many old or senior employees and most Taiwanese companies. The attitude of being “afraid junior employees threaten their positions” is also the attitude of some Taiwanese supervisors who micro-manage subordinates. Many old or senior employees have the same issue as the issue of those supervisors who micro-manage subordinates, too. The attitude of afraid of getting threatened, the issue of trying to have a sense of superiority, and the issue of having a sense of inferiority often make many Taiwanese subordinates excessively rely upon supervisors; they are not independent in work. Behaviors of such subordinates are similar to that of the freshmen in this case. Therefore, the attitude of afraid of getting threatened and the issue of the sense of superiority and inferiority don’t help companies but result in bad impacts on Taiwanese companies and junior employees. What’s worse, many of such highly dependent employees have been promoted to supervisors.

I have three suggestions for this situation:
One, old or senior employees and Taiwanese supervisors should stop having these attitudes, follow my suggestion about improving your knowledge in your position in the previous paragraph, and demand junior employees to be independent in work instead. If you are a senior employee but not a supervisor, you should figure out what you want in your career on your own. If you don’t want to get promoted but only want a stable job in your current position, why do you care whether your junior colleague will become your supervisor or not? Isn’t staying in the current position what you want? Why do you care whether the abilities of your junior colleague are better than yours? His/Her abilities are just better than yours. Fix your own psychological issues on your own instead of affecting junior colleagues for the ridiculous reason of “saving face”. If you want to get promoted, strengthen your abilities on your own and fairly compete with your junior colleagues instead of affecting junior colleagues and the company you work for.
Two and most important, Taiwanese bosses and supervisors should promote employees that are independent in work and have good abilities, rather than employees who are not independent but only “Yes Men” who only are able to do what you taught before. Such highly dependent employees won’t help companies grow or become better and therefore shouldn’t be promoted; just let them stay where they are currently. You as supervisors should work on being independent at work, too.
Three, junior employees should work on being independent at work rather than always relying upon supervisors, especially if they hope to get promoted.

Second, with respect to the concern that being too capable will get more work, the first thing you should note is that sometimes the extra work assigned to you will build up your experience and bring you a promotion. In some cases, this also makes you highly visible in front of high-ranking executives in the company, which is also good for your promotion or your career. This concern of being afraid to get more work is similar to the concern of wearing many hats which I discuss in Point 3, Part 3 of the article. As I said if the work can help your career and “doesn’t make you work overtime”, why not? You may refer to my suggestion in Part 3 of the article. If the work can help your career but will make you work overtime, well, that depends on your choice based on what you want / your goal in your career. You should think on your own. There is no single right answer suitable for everyone. In addition, there is a Taiwanese saying in the comment, “Pretending to be stupid, but becomes very reliable in front of the boss. That should be the way of being in the workplace.” I don’t agree with this thought. If an employee has this kind of behavior, he/she probably isn’t independent in doing his/her work but rely upon his/her colleagues and supervisors. He/She only did jobs assigned by the big boss well. Looks like a flatterer. Is such an employee really what you want? Such an employee shouldn’t be promoted. Instead, bosses and supervisors should promote independent employees.

There is one particular case in the mentioned comment I would like to discuss: the case of being a part-time worker and doing a lot of work with a lower salary than those of other employees.
One, since it’s just a part-time job during college, it’s okay for you to just leave and find a better job. The boss paid you a lower salary than that of your colleague; that’s a bad boss – I agree. However, on the other hand, when you encounter such a situation, if you want to have a career in the field you work in, you can wait until you build enough experience, then request to promote to a higher-ranking position you should own with a corresponding higher salary you deserve. Even if you don’t want to have a career in the field or before you build enough experience, you probably “can’t” or “don’t want to” request to get a promotion, you still can request to raise your salary to become higher than that of your colleague given the reason of doing a better job or the reason of having the more amount of work than your colleagues who are at the same ranking and same position do under the circumstance that more amount of work is helpful for the organization ( For example, a part-time job in a restaurant where the business is very good and busy ). The two above choices I give apply to every type of job, not only part-time jobs. It is not seen in the comment that the commenter has made one of the above efforts. If the commenter indeed did not make one of the above efforts, I would suggest that instead of complaining about the boss and leaving the job, it is better to take the initiative to fight for it; maybe the situation will be different. The two suggestions may not work out, especially in Taiwan where the environment is full of bad bosses. But it is also possible that you will meet bosses who are willing to promote you or give you a raise in salary, especially since some Taiwanese indeed have had the experience of being promoted under such circumstances. Although examples of salary increases without promotion are not common in such entry-level jobs in the catering industry which are highly replaceable, there are some people in office jobs who have the experience of fighting for a salary increase because of their great ability and therefore getting a salary increase when they are not promoted. Therefore, in the case of “the freshman like to pretend to be stupid”, since it is an office job, if you meet a good boss, you can fight for a salary increase if your ability is good, so you don’t need to pretend to be stupid. In addition, I also suggest to owners in the catering industry that when you have an employee with one of the above advantages, even if you do not promote him/her because he/she lacks enough experience, you should indeed give him/her a salary increase. Because in a restaurant which is very busy, without this employee, you might have to hire two or more employees to cover the same workload at the same time.
Two, the commenter said in his next job, even when there was a customer, he still took his time. That’s indeed what he should do in his first job. But it’s not only because the previous boss is bad, but also because many Taiwanese are too industrious and work too fast – A point which I discuss in Part 3 of the article. Working fast shouldn’t mean someone’s ability is good ( Working fast doesn’t mean working efficiently and therefore working fast. They are different things ), even in the catering industry or highly replaceable jobs in the service industry. It’s Taiwanese customers and bosses should stop being impatient when a clerk or service worker is busy. I hope everyone can change their view.
Three, as I said in the last paragraph, companies should promote independent employees instead of dependent employees who still can’t think on their own or do their job on their own after training.

Third, let’s talk about the last thought which is “afraid of doing a job wrong”. Some Taiwanese think the freshman just wants to confirm whether he did the work correctly, which is also a common behavior among many Taiwanese. Confirming isn’t wrong, but I believe there is a better way of expressing he just wants to confirm. He can just say, “I am going to do XXX. Is do [this way], then do that correct?”, or “I finish doing XXX. Would you help to check if I do it correctly?” But he didn’t. He said, “how to do it?” after finishing doing the work. I think the possibility of wanting to confirm is low. If the intention of this freshman or you is really about confirmation when saying “How to do it”, he and you have a serious issue with expression ability. Not every people can understand you just want to confirm when you say “How to do it”, not don’t know “How to do it”? What’s more, as I said, junior employees should become more independent. You shouldn’t still confirm every time after you receive proper training and get positive feedback during several reviews.

Fourth, with regard to some supervisors’ issues of doing everything that she/he didn’t teach subordinates before instead of letting subordinates think on their own and exert their abilities, part of my suggestion in Point 4 in Part 3 of this article can resolve this problem. If the work is about the function you work in, certainly you can show your subordinate how to do a new work which you haven’t taught before. That said, sometimes you can do a risk assessment, let your subordinate think on his/her own how to do work, and accept some failures if the risk is not big. Nevertheless, sometimes a work that a supervisor didn’t teach before is about another function that a subordinate and you don’t work in. Some supervisors do such jobs on their own. Some supervisors do that because of the ridiculous sense of superiority and inferiority; some supervisors do that because they don’t know whether a subordinate’s work is good or not; some are both. For the latter two types of supervisors whose problems aren’t solely psychological issues, let me repeat part of my suggestion in Point 4 in Part 3: It’s okay because you don’t have to possess every specialty. However, since…[some reason], so 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? Since 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, it could also be indeed good. 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/work 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 about 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/work is good, 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 very much about what you are concerned about. 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.

In addition to the micro-management issue in Taiwan, I also want to discuss the view toward exceptional employees. In a news interview, Ting Hao, Chairman of DAVICOM semiconductor, said that his college classmates and he like the feeling of teamwork, and there is less competition due to that. He said, “Sometimes, although everyone studies on their own, after taking the test, the scores of everyone are either all very high or all very low. This is team spirit.” Hao Ting also shared that he had a classmate who had studied at both National Taiwan University ( NTU, the top 1 university in Taiwan ) and Jiaotong University, but that classmate would say that the classmate from NTU would say “I’m the best”, but the classmate from Jiaotong University would say “We are the best”. Ting Hao thinks this is the team spirit of Jiaotong University. Zhou-Jie Huang, Chairman of SUNPLUS technology, went on to say that there was a classmate responsible for providing the practice questions targeted for engineering mathematics and physics. As a result, other classmates including him were able to prepare for the exam with the practice questions and answers that their classmates gave, which helped them a lot. In the highly competitive environment of high school, how could there is a person do such a thing? But this classmate has been doing it for two years from sophomore to junior year, so Zhou-Jie Huang feels that everyone is like a family, and everyone is willing to contribute even after they leave the college ^[6] https://finance.ettoday.net/news/2335390?redirect=1 .

I don’t agree with these chairmans’ views.
First, chairman Ting Hao has a misconception about the definition of “Team spirit”.
Saying “We are the best” instead of “I am the best” is Team spirit? Then chairman, why didn’t you bring all the good classmates in your class in to start the company with you, but they don’t need to know anything: Again, they don’t need to understand anything. It’s not that only no need to understand the semiconductors aspect; it’s also that no need to understand everything. They don’t need to understand semiconductors, nor do they need to understand business. They also don’t need to take the initiative to work hard, as they have you teaching them anyway. They don’t need to do anything. Don’t need to work hard. Then they can be on an equal footing with you and earn as much money as you. Team spirit – they don’t need to know anything; they can be on an equal footing with you and become “we are the best”. You tell me this is so-called team spirit? Then “Chairman”, why don’t you adjust the salaries of your entry-level engineers and the administration personnel to be the same as yours, and let all of them have the title of the chairman, but they still continue to do their original jobs? Team spirit. They don’t have the ability to be the chairman and don’t have to pay anything you have paid. Then they can be on an equal footing with you and become “we are the best”, earn as much money as you, and say that they are chairmen of a big company to other people. Chairman of the company. You tell me this is team spirit?
To the chairman: sometimes someone says “I am the best” because he/she is indeed the best, and he/she did great work on his/her own. Accept this fact and let exceptional individuals shine.
Furthermore, let’s talk about what is team spirit ( or teamwork ). “Team spirit” is not about everyone doing the same work together and having the same performance. Team spirit is about everyone exerting his/her professional abilities and collaborating together to accomplish a common goal. According to MBA Wiki, team spirit is based on respect for individual interests and achievements, with collaboration at its core. Notice while “the collaboration” is its core, the definition also says “based on respect for individual interests and achievements”. The Wiki also says “teamwork” is about “the team’s overall goal is broken down into smaller goals, which are implemented by each employee”. ^[7] https://wiki.mbalib.com/zh-tw/团队精神 . The Point 1 of this article illustrates the detail of “letting everyone exert his/her professional abilities and collaborate together to accomplish a common goal”. You may read that article if you are interested. What’s more, in my view, whether a goal is about an individual project or a collaborative project, sometimes an exceptional employee can make a great achievement that is important to a company while others don’t. For example, he/she may have a good achievement in an individual project for the company. Or he/she may make a good achievement by doing the tasks he/she is assigned in a collaborative project that multiple employees are assigned different tasks, but he/she is the one who makes a good achievement that is important for the project or the company by doing the tasks he/she is assigned. Since “team spirit” is about everyone who can exert their abilities, “team spirit” should also allow exceptional employees to shine and make achievement to the goal of the company or of the team by exerting their abilities.

Second, chairman Zhou-Jie Huang’s thought that “everyone is like a family” is not correct. As an adult, you should work on your own if you can rather than seek other persons’ help every time. My above example in the last paragraph also applies to this thought that “everyone is like a family”. It’s good if there is a classmate who is willing to help with coursework. Most students studying in a college don’t want to fluck a subject and want to get graduated. But it’s your responsibility of working on your coursework on your own as an adult if there isn’t anyone to help. So you and other people shouldn’t take such help for granted and think people who aren’t willing to do that as cold blood if that’s also what you think. Moreover, there are always smart students and average students. It’s your problem as you should accept someone else may be smarter than you and have a higher grade than you do, rather than thinking everyone getting “good grades” or “bad grades” together is good. Accept this fact and let exceptional individuals shine.

Third, the thoughts in the news interview are actually many Taiwanese bosses, supervisors, and entry-level employees’ thoughts. Such thoughts are not team spirit, and you should work independently as an “adult” instead of seeking other person’s help every time. Here is my suggestion to the two chairmen and other bosses/supervisors/employees sharing similar thoughts: Sometimes some work can assign to an individual who has good abilities and let him/her work independently and exert his/her ability rather than assigning a group of average employees. Appreciate the great abilities and work results of an exceptional employee and promote such an employee instead; otherwise, you and other bosses sharing a similar mindset with you will bury exceptional talents and stop such talents from making great achievements for your companies.

Read the next part: Part 5 of this article by clicking the link.

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