Things need to be changed in the workplace – (8)

This is Part 8 of this article. Read Part 7 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.

16. How to manage employees from different cultural backgrounds

In a book named Mastering Project Management, the author James Lewis discuss how to deal with cultural difference in one of the chapters. Despite it being a great book and providing much valuable knowledge, I don’t fully agree with the author’s perspective in one of the chapters which discusses how to deal with cultural differences. Let me illustrate my view with the examples discussed in the book.

In one of the examples in the book, the author wrote, “A project manager was working on a joint venture with a Japanese company. When he discussed an issue with a Japanese engineer, he asked the engineer if the engineer agreed with his view, and the engineer exactly said yes. However, he later learned that the Japanese engineer actually did not agree with him; the engineer responded yes out of courtesy… In Japan, it is considered rude to say no. So when dealing with a Japanese businessman, people have to be careful to determine whether the “yes” really means he/she agrees, or whether it is just out of courtesy.”
The book further said that Dave Berry, in his book Dave Berry does Japan, mentions a similar experience. One day, Dave called a travel agency to book a flight. The Service staff answered, ‘Maybe you’d be better off taking the train’. Dave said he preferred taking the flight, but got the same response. “After repeated conversations, he finally understood what she meant: ‘There is no plane from X to Y. The only way to get there is by train’ “, the book wrote.

The view of the author James in dealing with a Japanese that “you need to be careful to determine whether the ‘yes’ really means he/she agrees”, which means that you need to adapt to the local culture when you are in a different country. I don’t fully agree with the author’s view. In such a Japanese case, although native Japanese probably are well aware that the Japanese saying “Maybe you’d be better off taking the train” means “there is no plane”, I think that the behavior of “always saying yes” sometimes create confusions, even if the person who is dealing with such a matter is a native Japenese.

For instance, what if a person is really suggesting that taking a train is better without knowing whether there is a plane from X to Y? Some Japanese may think it’s impossible, as most Japanese know saying that means “there is no plane”. However, this indeed could happen. I have no experience in dealing with Japanese; maybe the Japanese usually explain more to let the listener understand that he/she is really “suggesting” instead of “rejecting” for some reason or simply because of a lack of willingness. Still, in the case that there is actually no need to explain more, isn’t it troublesome to explain more to let a listener understand what you actually mean?
For another instance that people including the Japanese have to determine whether the “yes” really means “yes” (Agreement) when discussing work with the Japanese, isn’t it complicated? Saying “No” to someone shouldn’t be considered as being impolite.

First, no one should reject other people’s right of saying “No” even if it’s only out of personal unwillingness for no particular reason. That’s the respect you should pay to everyone. Hence, accepting a “No” from someone means you respect that person; saying “No” means you respect yourself and your right when you don’t want. It shouldn’t be considered impolite in either side’s eyes. For example, saying “No” to a client simply because your company doesn’t want to do such a job? Ok, it’s your company’s right: You and the employees in your company are humans, so the client can’t force you to do the job; however, the client has the right to choose another vendor who would take the job, too. Sometimes losing a client or losing a job for saying “No” to a client or a supervisor is not a bad thing, as everyone can have their own boundry – It’s their right. You just have to evaluate what must you need or what you prefer.

Second, sometimes saying “No” are for some reason. If you don’t speak out about what the reason is, it’s difficult for people even sometimes Japanese to understand the reason behind the rejection, even if they understand your “yes” doesn’t mean “yes” and it is just out of courtesy. For example, when a native Japanese understands someone’s “yes” is just out of courtesy and that person actually doesn’t agree with a matter, the Japanese who is the listener may come up with a possible reason himself/herself without asking why about the disagreement. Therefore, the direction of the conversation leads the wrong way and creates a lot of miscommunication and unnecessary troubles. In another possible scenario, suppose that the listener indeed asks, “Why do you disagree with it?” after hearing a “yes” out of courtesy, this way certainly can save a lot of unnecessary troubles; however, it’s tiring. Just saying “No” will be much easier.

Third, this is just speculation. If this speculation is wrong, you can ignore this third point. In some cases, you can only determine whether a person’s “yes” indeed means “yes” ( Agreement ) or are just out of courtesy by actually seeing that person’s facial expression or hearing that person’s voice. Although I have no experience in determining the Japanese’s true thought behind the words, I guess this is true universally, as many people interpret someone’s mind by observing the facial expression and voices. When you have to look at someone’s facial expression or hear their voice to understand the meanings behind the word, it will make it harder to work with someone remotely. Although some people still prefer discussing with other people face to face or by phone, I think remote communication can save a lot of time and money in commuting and traveling; it will be better for you to adopt remote communication rather than meeting someone physically every time. Clearly saying “No” when you disagree or reject something and saying “Yes” only when you indeed agree or accept something is a more clear and more efficient way to communicate in remote communication.

Because of the above reasons, why not just say “No” when you want to reject and say “Yes” when you really mean “Yes”? This will be a more clear and more efficient way to communicate on any occasion.

By the way, Taiwan has a similar problem. In Taiwan, many people are afraid of rejecting people because either traditional culture makes them feel sorry when rejecting someone or they are afraid of being disliked. Taiwan is unlike Japan in this respect: When a Taiwanese says “Yes”, the meaning of a Taiwanese indeed means “Yes”. Taiwanese will undertake something or indeed agree with it; however, in their mind, there may be much unwillingness either for some reason or for no particular reason. Although this traditional culture in Taiwan doesn’t make trouble for people from other countries and therefore has nothing to do with the issue of dealing with people from different cultural backgrounds here, it does create problems for Taiwanese, as many Taiwanese always say “Yes” and undertake something or agree on something when they don’t want.
Some Taiwanese does work on courageously saying “No” when they want to say no – It’s good. For some other Taiwanese who don’t have the courage to say “No”, here is my advice to you:
First, undertaking something that you don’t want to do creates problems for yourself. As I said, everyone can have their own boundary. Some people have unwillingness but are not clear about what’s their boundary. You should deeply think about what your boundary is and practice saying “No” rather than having no boundary. If you know your boundary, just practice saying “No”.
Second, agreeing on something when you disagree creates problems for both other people and yourself. Many of you think that since you already agree with that and you won’t object to that after that, what’s wrong with that? No. Sometimes some disagreement of Taiwanese has some reasonable reasons. Why not just speak out and discuss this with the supervisor and colleagues? Maybe your reason makes sense and the proposal should be rejected, or maybe your concern makes sense, but after discussion with your supervisor and colleagues, they come up with some solution that can fix your concern.

Let’s discuss the second example in the book. The book writes, “The Indian engineer refused to do the lab work. The project manager said, “In this lab, all engineers have to do some experimental work on their own.” Although the engineer complied with the project manager’s instructions, he was still angry and unhappy. The project manager did not understand that this was demeaning to the engineer. In India, engineers never do experimental work because it is considered demeaning. If the project manager had understood this, he would have said, ‘If you’re going to stay in the U.S., unless you find a company with so many technical personnel that every engineer can have one, you have to adapt to our way of doing things.’ But in reality, he thinks that the engineer is a self-centered person.”

The author James provides a great way to resolve this misunderstanding problem resulting from cultural differences in this case. However, from my perspective, there are two additional points worthies to be noted:
One, since the place where the Indian engineer in this case lives is in the U.S., he should be aware of the fact that there must be some things in the U.S. that are not as same as in India due to cultural differences. If he did some homework, maybe he can be aware of the fact that doing experimental work doesn’t mean demeaning an engineer in the U.S.
Two, when working with people from different cultural backgrounds, you should be more clear in expressing your thought. You can’t assume that other people must know what you are thinking. In this example, the Indian engineer only expresses his dissatisfaction with doing experimental work without saying why. If he had said, “Doing that means demeaning my identity as an engineer”. Maybe the matter will be resolved by further discussion. For example, the project manager might have some clues because of this reply and therefore ask, “Does doing experimental work mean demeaning an engineer in India? ” Another scenario which is more possible is that the project manager might ask in return, “Why it is demeaning your identity? Every engineer is doing the same job. Other people don’t have such a thought.” Then the Indian engineer might finally understand and provide further explanation. That said, the point that there is actually a cultural difference on whether to do extra work or not for an engineer, in this case, is not an easy point to be spotted on. Even if the Indian engineer clearly had said that he thought such behavior is demeaning an engineer, the project manager might still think that this engineer is a self-centered person; the project manager might think, “Who do you think you are? Demeaning you? Are you a king or a prince?” This second suggestion may not work in this case and some cases. Still, in some other cases, clearly expressing why regarding your dissatisfaction is a good way to clear some misunderstandings. So I suggest you should at least try to do it. For instance, in the last case regarding Japanese culture above, clearly saying “No” will save many unnecessary troubles.

The last example in the book that I want to discuss is a case regarding Thailand’s culture. “There was a man who came to Thailand to work. One day…..They (The Thai employees) were praying at a small temple. It turned out that there was a problem in the factory and they were praying for a smooth solution. However, they didn’t tell the management what was going on and thought the manager should know about such things”, the book wrote.
It’s a very interesting example. The author’s suggestion for some cases including this case is that you must understand the local culture in order to work with people from different cultural backgrounds. However, in my view, this suggestion may be true for some cases, but in terms of this case, it has nothing to do with cultural differences.

Yes. Of course, everyone has their own freedom of religious belief; the behavior of praying itself has no problem at all. Yet, the problem is that the Thai employees, in this case, did not know the fact that the Western manager wouldn’t know there was a problem in the factory if they hadn’t told the manager. The Thai employees perhaps lack the ability in thinking of what they should report on their own if they aren’t asked to provide a specific report. Many people have this problem; if the company they work for does not establish a rule or process of telling employees what to report in a slide, Excel report, or reports in any other format, these employees don’t think of the thing that their supervisors may need these employees report this matter to them. This also indicates one problem: If the problem in the factory in the case is something that often happens, it’s possible that the company did not establish enough necessary rules or processes for employees to follow when they can do so. Some smart employees may possess enough abilities to identify what should they report even when they are not told to do that; however, many employees do not possess such ability even if they are experienced professionals in some specific professionalism, not to mention entry-level factory workers. Since the case here is in a factory, the Thai employees perhaps are entry-level factory workers. Certainly, entry-level factory workers aren’t smart enough or have enough abilities to identify what should they report when they are not told; otherwise, they probably wouldn’t apply for entry-level factory worker jobs but instead for other jobs with professionalism. Let me explain with an example. Many Taiwanese work in Taiwan subsidiaries of Western companies in roles of managing Taiwan manufacturers. They often pray at temples when there is a problem with a project as the Thai do, too. ( Taiwan’s religious belief is different from Thailand’s, but the behavior of praying at the temple is similar.) However, because the Western company they work for has some rules and processes specifying what to report, the Western supervisors in the West often can receive reports with the things they need to know because those Taiwanese are told to report such matters. Another example, many Westerners pray in churches. Although I am not familiar with Christian or Catholic, I don’t know if Christian or Catholic believers also pray for work problems at churches (Though it seems that they mostly praise God and sometimes pray for life problems but do not pray for work problems). However, if they do pray for work problems at churches, they can still report the problem to their supervisors and discuss how to resolve it. Hence, the problem has nothing to do with praying or religious belief; the problem is about reporting and identifying what to report.

The conclusion from the author is that “The reason we find these things strange is that they don’t exist in our culture. But for people in those countries, it is very appropriate and we must respect it.” It’s certain that we should respect different cultures; however, from my perspective, if something in parts of the culture is wrong, that specific thing which is wrong should be corrected or improved, not be accepted simply because “it’s part of the culture”. I am not disrespecting cultures in other countries. For example, there are some countries in the world that still harm girls’ sexual organs when they are young, which is part of their traditional culture. Do you think it’s right? Of course not. But that’s their traditional culture, shouldn’t we respect it? Still no. Many of us will hope these countries stop harming girls in this way, which is the right thought.
In the example of Japan, Yes, “don’t say No” is part of Japanese culture, but if it has any disadvantage, it should either be improved in a certain way or discarded. I am only suggesting improving or discarding the bad part of any culture; there are still many beautiful parts of Japanese culture that can be kept.
In conclusion, let me repeat my perspective: If something in parts of the culture is wrong, that specific thing which is wrong should be corrected or improved, not be accepted simply because “it’s part of the culture”. One thing to add:We should correct the wrong part of the culture, so we can see and do things in better ways.

Note: Although the cases here are about other countries, Taiwan also has some cultural problems that need to be corrected or improved. “Always saying yes and doing things unwillingly because of saying yes” is one of the problems, as I mentioned in this issue.

17. The Problem Related To Work culture in Taiwan And The Solution

Mismanagement, Treatment of employees in the wrong way, and office politics

There is a common word in the job description of job postings of subsidiaries of Western companies from headhunters in Taiwan nowadays: “Directly report to the supervisor in the U.S”. This has become an attractive condition for Taiwanese professionals who look for a new job in a subsidiary of Western companies. Why? Because many subsidiaries of Western companies have been “Taiwanese-businessized” : That subsidiary is full of Taiwanese, and the supervisors are Taiwanese, too. That’s okay. However, the mismanagement or treatment of employees in a wrong way by Taiwanese supervisors in these subsidiaries because of the old habits in previous companies and the past experience they have with their bad previous supervisors is terrible. This article and the below comment chain is one of the good examples ^[1]https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Tech_Job/M.1624416857.A.A15.html . No wonder why many people want a Western supervisor instead of a Taiwanese supervisor (XD). Employees and high-ranking supervisors play the more severe version of office politics or have a political battle with each other as they did in previous Taiwanese companies they worked for^[2]https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Tech_Job/M.1440732268.A.D5F.html  ^[3]https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Tech_Job/M.1628297537.A.110.html . In addition, the salaries of some subsidiaries of Western companies are even also “Taiwanese-businessized”. The salaries become lower because Taiwanese supervisors and HRs use the common level of salaries in Taiwan to propose salary figures internally. Some jobs in such subsidiaries have a lot of demands in the job description but the salaries are ridiculously low. Simply because the salary of a position is higher than the average salary in Taiwan doesn’t mean the salary is justified. Even if considering the price level in Taiwan is lower than that in the West, the salary is still very low in Taiwan. It’s that the salaries from Taiwanese companies are fucking low because Taiwanese bosses have not considered the price in Taiwan rise for decades, not because that’s the salary is what Taiwanese deserves that ridiculous low salary, not to mention the housing price to Income ratio of Taipei (The capital in Taiwan) is higher that of New York or that of San Francisco in California ^[4]https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/rankings_by_country.jsp  ^[5]https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/in/Taipei  ^[6]https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/in/New-York  ^[7]https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/in/San-Francisco . The supervisors in the West are also partly responsible for this situation, as they are happy when their Taiwanese subordinates “cut down” the cost of human resources for them.

This situation is terrible. If all of the Taiwanese people are managed by Westerners because of Taiwanese employees‘ preference, certainly it’s good for those Taiwanese employees, but how will these Taiwanese employees ever get promoted and become higher-ranking supervisors who actually “manage” and “lead” employees in the future? For a better work environment for employees, I still suggest letting a Westerner manage Taiwanese employees if that Westerner is indeed better, given that many Taiwanese supervisors treat Taiwanese employees in a terribly wrong way. Nevertheless, my suggestion to many Taiwanese supervisors: STOP managing employees in the wrong and terrible way you did in the past. Many of you are managed by higher-ranking Western supervisors – either it’s a Director, VP, or a C-suite executive, and you are happy with that. If you like the way your Western supervisors manage you, why don’t you manage your Taiwanese employees the way your Western supervisors manage you? You were in terrible environments in the past, so you didn’t have role models to learn from. But that doesn’t mean you can mismanage your employees as you were mismanaged in the past. As I previously suggested in Part 3 of the article, you, unfortunately, had a bad environment; the solution is that you should strengthen your knowledge in management and leadership instead of treating your employees in the wrong way as you or your previous supervisors did in the past. Moreover, since you get better treatment from your new Western supervisor now, why are you still treating your employees in the wrong way when you are having great treatment and better management? Not to mention many of you can use your high-ranking Western supervisors as your role model to learn from, but you never have the intention nor try to learn how to treat, manage, or lead employees well.

Another issue regarding office politics is that many Taiwanese supervisors, either it’s high-ranking or low-ranking personnel, either in a Western organization or a Taiwanese organization, play political battles with other departments or with colleagues/subordinates in the same department. For example, a Taiwanese supervisor or a colleague tends to disapprove of an employee’s work simply because of strong jealousy and because she/he is afraid the employee may threaten his position or that may be the one who gets promoted is not herself/himself. For another example, a Taiwanese supervisor of a specific department hates another department and plays some tricks on that department simply because that department has better performance and he/she is jealous of that. The key issues are that Taiwanese who proactively play political battles don’t realize one crucial fact and have problems of being arrogant and highly jealous.

What is the crucial fact which isn’t realized by many Taiwanese? It is that organizations rely on good-performance employees or departments to help organizations grow or make more money. If a company makes more money, it will have more money to either increase employees’ base salary or the bonus. Sometimes when the profit becomes stable, it’s the salary of every employee gets increases, not only the salary of a specific department or an employee who made such good work. Isn’t it great that everyone makes more money?
Even if doing a job well is not related to the revenue of a company on appearance, doing a job well is still indirectly related to the revenue of a company. Why? Because the effect of doing a job well such as establishing a new process or improving work efficiency will make employees from some departments of a company perform better or strengthen their skills because they learn something from the new process or the new way of efficiently performing a specific job. This will help to keep good employees stay in the company – whether it’s an old employee or a new hire; good employees will do more jobs well for the company and help the company grow or make money. Moreover, because doing a job well will help other employees in a certain way – maybe it’s other employees can perform a job better because of the great new process, this will perhaps make employees leave great reviews on the company (If there are no other bad things). As a result, great professionals will be attracted and apply for a job in this company because of the good reviews from current or previous employees on the Internet.

Equally importantly, as I said, good employees will do more jobs well for the company and help the company grow or make more money. If you praise the employee or the department who does jobs well or at least does not play a political battle against her/him/them, good employees may stay because there is no vicious political battle. Such good employees will contribute more to the company you work for. Maybe one of the contributions will benefit you; even if jobs that are done well have no benefit to you, they won’t harm you anyway: You are simply being highly jealous. Sometimes such good employees are keys to a company’s survival. If a good employee’s work has a negative impact on you, it’s you who may need to review yourself on what’s wrong with yourself or your work.You may be a bad or terrible employee. As some of you know, in many cases, bad employees are like a bad boss is the key to a company’s failure.

Because of the above reasons and because being arrogant and highly jealous are not good characteristics, I strongly suggest you put up your arrogance and your stronger-than-normal jealousy and stop playing political battles against innocent employees and departments. I also advise Taiwanese bosses to watch out for political battles within their organization and use my advice in Point 8, Part 6 of the article regarding the solution to conflicts in the workplace instead of ignoring them since political battles or conflicts don’t affect you. Such a political battle does affect you and your organization in a way you didn’t realize: Preventing a company from growing or making more money and making good employees leave while bad employees stay.

In addition, I would like to particularly discuss the conflicts between employees that are about political battles. There is an article named “The smarter a leader is, the happier he/she is in the face of infighting among his subordinates”^[8]https://www.102like.com/p69568.asp . The main idea of the article is that “When subordinates’ relationship is not harmonious, the supervisor’s own position is more secure, as subordinates will ignore their dissatisfaction and opinions about their leader and will focus more on the person with whom they are infighting when subordinates are busy with infighting”. Many Taiwanese leaders think that in this way, there will be no forces within the team that target the leader and endanger the leader’s position. This idea came from the political tactic that the emperors in Ancient time China often used to consolidate their positions as the emperors of China. Many Taiwanese ( including many Taiwanese employees) agree with this perspective. Nevertheless, in my view, this article and the ancient political tactic are fucking ridiculous and have nothing worth to be considered. Let me discuss the four points in the article one by one.

1. When subordinates’ relationship is not harmonious, the supervisor’s own position is more secure:
Subordinates will ignore their dissatisfaction and opinions about their leader and will focus more on the person with whom they are infighting when subordinates are busy with infighting” ^[9]https://kknews.cc/zh-tw/career/5p6py88.html ^[10]https://www.102like.com/p69568.asp 
Note: The content of the first point of the original cited article is similar to the fourth point below, so I use the other article’s point of view on this point here.

My view:
Yes, this tactic indeed lets subordinates be busy in infighting with their peers but respect their supervisors; however, such respect gained by subordinates fighting among themselves is not a good thing at all. This tactic is only good for incompetent bosses and supervisors to cover their incompetence. How is it good for an organization or good employees when there is an incompetent supervisor or boss? Especially great employees will leave because of such incompetent bosses or supervisors, thus preventing a company from growing or making more money. Employees shouldn’t work for incompetent bosses if having a better option; incompetent supervisors should be fired, not stay. You should either leave or use your abilities to prove you deserve your position instead of being afraid your subordinate find out you are incompetent.

The ancient political tactic is only about an emperor and his family can keep enjoying wealth and glory by staying in the most powerful position in China – An emperor want to keep their position, enjoy wealth, and pass the position and wealth and glory to one of his children instead of letting others who are not his children taking over his position; it has nothing to do with making a country better by appointing virtuous and capable people according to a traditional concept of Chinese or work in cooperation with a due division of labor according to a main idea in the West. Why is this tactic good for a country and its people? It’s only good for the emperors and their family members.In modern times, if a president of a country is incompetent, he/she will be required to leave the position of the president, and someone will be chosen by civilians as a new President. ( If you are a Chinese in China, although the political system in China is different from that in Taiwan or in some Western countries, you can still think of this part as an incompetent CEO who will be fired by the board if he doesn’t do the job well. ) The idea of consolidating a position even if you are incompetent is simply outdated in modern times. Some emperors indeed wanted to make China better, but that’s not the reason they use this tactic. This tactic is only used for consolidating their position as emperors, nothing more. If an exceptional subordinate makes an emperor feel threatened, the emperor still takes down this subordinate either by using this tactic or other methods. Why is taking down an exceptional subordinate good for the country and its people in any way? It has no good at all. Not to mention some emperors in Ancient China are indeed incompetent as they got their position by inheritance, not by abilities.

Being happy with or even inciting conflict among your subordinates only proves you are an incompetent leader who has to use this pathetic way to keep staying in your current position instead of actually leading a united team to success. Many such bosses or supervisors who love office infighting among employees are simply like Chinese emperors: Love the salary and the position but don’t care whether the company will become better or worse because of office politics. What’s more, the only thing you are good at is probably playing political battles, not some specialties, just as many emperors are probably only good at taking down their brothers and subordinates. Anyway, some Taiwanese companies don’t even care about growth; they can still keep running and make some money despite being bad companies, who care about making a company better by fixing the political battles to improve employees’ work environment? Your deliberate disregard and playing political battles against employees prove you don’t care about the company or your employees – whether you are a boss or a supervisor.

2. Subordinate relations are not harmonious, the more your power is consolidated:
If the subordinates are too united, they will not fear you because they know that they can twist into a rope and be against the leader, and you will have no prestige. In time, the leader’s words will not work, and the power to decide on some issues will still be with the subordinates, and the leader’s position will be in jeopardy.

My view:
No.
One, why do you need your subordinate to fear you? Can’t you work together in a normal mood or in a pleasant mood? This thought of letting subordinates fear you are simply outdated.

Two, why do you need your subordinate to follow your words by fearing you? Can’t you assign work to them when they are not fear you at all? This is just because you are incompetent, so you have to use fear to lead them.

Three, giving some power of making the decision to your subordinates is a good thing. Firstly, why do you need to make every minor decision? This is micro-management. It’s simply that many of you feel threatened when your subordinate is making some decisions. Some decisions, despite being important, are the decision that your employee in his/her level of position should make. Your job is to make some decisions that correspond to your current position, not make every decision for your subordinate. If you can’t identify what decisions your subordinate should make and what decisions your subordinate should not make, you as a supervisor should work on that yourself. Feeling threatened and making every decision only proves you are an “incompetent” supervisor who knows nothing about how to manage or lead employees but how to micro-manage people to consolidate your position. Shame on you. Secondly, as I said in many parts of the article, many Taiwanese lack independent thinking. I also mentioned in Point 9, Part 6 of the article, there are some supervisors are very indecisive and that’s a disadvantage that should be fixed. Giving away some power of making decisions can train your subordinates independently thinking and become more decisive. If you are also bad at independent thinking or being more decisive, you should work on yourself instead of taking away your subordinates’ jobs and feeling you are threatened. Again, this only proves that you are an “incompetent” supervisor who knows nothing about how to manage or lead employees but how to micro-manage people to consolidate your position.

Four, the leader’s position will be in jeopardy because your subordinate doesn’t fear you or your subordinate make some decisions for you? Since this only proves you are an incompetent supervisor or boss, as I said in No.1, this tactic is only good for incompetent bosses and supervisors to cover their incompetence. How is it good for an organization or good employees when there is an incompetent supervisor or boss?

3. The more subordinates do not get along, the more things you know:
If the relationship between subordinates is not good, in order to make themselves more prominent, someone will give you a tip-off. The more you know, these can be the handles of the employees who made mistakes, which will make employees more loyal to you. In the future, they will be fully committed to doing work, your power will be naturally more secure.

My view:
In Ancient China, utilizing a subordinate’s handle is a way for emperors to threaten subordinates to do something shitty or difficult for them, which you can see from many Chinese TV dramas regarding Ancient China. The following is my view.

First, why do you need your subordinates to do something shitty? It’s 2022, you are an office worker, not an emperor who can kill people. More importantly, can’t you compete with other supervisors brightly and fairly with your abilities instead of doing some shitty means? Shame on you, really.

Second, why do you need to ask your subordinate to do something difficult by utilizing a subordinate’s handle? Since it’s a difficult job, why don’t you encourage them to take the difficult job with some incentives such as a promotion, a higher-than-usual score on a performance review that may accelerate future promotion, or a big bonus that matches the difficulty of the work you assign? Because you do NOT provide some great incentives, You are exploiting your employees/subordinates by utilizing their handles, and so did those Chinese emperors. Equally importantly, if an employee doing something wrong, you should warn them in a proper way or even fire them if the mistake is severe or is made repeatedly, not utilizing those mistakes to ask subordinates to do something shitty or difficult to you.

Third, if you want your employees/subordinates to be more committed to work, offer some decent incentives that match what you expect. Again, utilizing a subordinate’s handle only proves you are an incompetent boss/supervisor that knows nothing about how to manage or lead employees.

4. The more subordinates are at odds, the more valuable the existence of leadership:
What is the duty of a leader? It is to assign tasks to people, so that they can do better, not to do everything personally. If the relationship between subordinates is very good, there is no conflict or contradiction, everyone’s mind is in sync with each other, and the whole team operates efficiently; there is no value or meaning of leadership at all.

My view:
This is a very absurd thought. It’s true that one of the jobs of a leader is to assign tasks instead of doing everything personally. However, the latter part is just absurd.
If a team operates efficiently, there are two advantages:

One, that will lead the team you lead to success, and both your team and you will be rewarded because of the great performance unless the boss is evil and does not offer any reward for better than normal performance at all. Even if the performance is only up to the normal standard when the team operates efficiently, operating efficiently still save you from bad performance, possibly saving you from fewer salaries or bonus, or even getting fired. It’s what many Taiwanese bosses have done wrong. They should fire bad supervisors and employees and keep the good ones instead of keeping bad supervisors or employees and letting them put the responsibility for mistakes on innocent employees.

Two, that’s the evidence that leadership works, even if sometimes the leader didn’t do anything: Sometimes doing nothing is the best help you can offer to your employees. Why? Because if your employees are competent, especially experienced employees instead of freshmen, they should be able to independently do some work rather than always relying on supervisors or colleagues, as long as you address your requirement clearly ( Very important. Many Taiwanese bosses and supervisors aren’t capable of expressing requirement clearly ). For example, if you are a software engineer, will you want your supervisor to stand behind you and watch you coding all the time? Many software engineers prefer supervisors to let them do their work instead of keeping watching them. The same idea applies to other jobs: Let your employees do their work instead of keeping watching them. Some employees are very dissatisfied with their supervisor doing nothing. Well, in many cases, there are indeed some supervisors who do nothing and are incompetent because of that. Supervisors do have to do some work; nevertheless, their jobs are not to keep watching you or telling you what and how to do. That will be micro-management; telling you what and how to do will reduce your chances of strengthening independent thinking. What are the things that a supervisor should do? For example, does your supervisor step in only when it’s necessary? Can your supervisor identify what part is wrong with your work instead of just disapproving it or just saying “It’s bad / He doesn’t like it / This is not the way they did in the past”, or saying anything like that which is not specific at all (Refer to Point 4, Part 3 of my article)? Does your supervisor evaluate your work performed properly and reasonably? These are some of the good indicators of doing a supervisor’s job properly instead of doing nothing.
In addition, some exceptional supervisors design great processes for the department or the team; as a result, the whole team operates more efficiently. That’s certainly evidence of the leadership works when a supervisor did something that is very obvious such as this thing.

Interview questions that Taiwanese bosses and supervisors are not comfortable with

Liz Ryan, a human resource expert, posts on Linkedin listing ten interview questions that a job applicant must get answers to when doing an interview. For example, “How do you handle performance and salary reviews here?” is one of the questions that Liz suggests job applicants ask during interviews. I will add one more question, which is similar to the 6th question from Liz: “What is your expectation for the job?” In the comment section, one Israeli said, “These are questions that, at least where I live, will get the candidate to be dismissed if phrased (expressed) this way…You have to be very careful about how to phrase them, they should be inserted in other things so that you get the answers without asking the exact questions….( If you ask such questions in a direct way, ) the reaction of the interviewer will be ‘Here is a guy that only thinks about himself.’ ” In fact, this is the common situation in Taiwan, too. Although Taiwanese supervisors answer some questions such as working hours or working additional hours, many Taiwanese supervisors still are uncomfortable with some other questions such as “What is your expectation for the job?”, or “How do you handle performance and salary reviews here?”.

Many Americans feel weird about why would candidate be dismissed if asking these questions. One American replied to the Israeli’s comment, “Dismissed for setting the level of expectation within the role/company? Hmm… To me, any company that would dismiss me for asking these questions sounds like they might be TOXIC… In that case, dismiss away^[11]https://www.linkedin.com/posts/lizryan_ten-questions-you-must-get-answers-to-activity-6967495615605837825-q8r7/?trk=public_profile_like_view&originalSubdomain=sk .” Well said. However, the Israeli answered to that reply, “dismissed because the reaction of the interviewer will be “Here is a guy that only thinks about himself. I’d better look for someone else that knows how to weigh between his own welfare and the welfare of the company.” He further stated the only exception to this rule in Israel is start-up companies; this is similar to Taiwan’s case.

The problem is that the cultures in Taiwan, Israel, and some other countries are very different from the cultures of many highly-developed or rich countries in the West, such as the U.S. Old people in some countries such as Taiwan, particularly in the East, are used to traditional local culture and therefore are very conservative, despite that some of such countries in the East already become developed countries or are at least middle-income countries. Many Taiwanese think that we must respect the traditional culture, so they don’t think this concept needs to be changed. However, I don’t think so. If a traditional cultural concept is bad, we must change and keep up to date. There is no point to keep bad traditional cultural concepts. We can keep only the good parts. As the example I mentioned in Point 16 of this article, you will hope those countries who harm girls’ bodies as part of their traditional culture stop doing that, then why not change your view on the bad part of your local traditional culture?
In addition, why does this American think a company that dismisses a person for asking these questions is toxic? Because these questions are about the situation of the job and the company, and about the expectations from the supervisor. Letting candidates know these things means respecting the candidate’s right of choosing employers based on the answers to these questions. “don’t know how to weigh between his own welfare and the welfare of the company”? That’s ridiculous.
First, shouldn’t the welfare of employees be considered in modern times? Which century does such a boss or a supervisor live in? Such bosses and supervisors undoubtedly have outdated minds. In my view, they should either retire earlier or if they still want to stay in the workplace, change their own minds.
( To those people who think I am too aggressive: My words are not aggressive at all. It’s simply that such a boss or supervisor has a mind that is outdated too far. It’s that such a supervisor or boss lowers the level of job interviews too much. Maybe it’s that you have an outdated mind, too. You should blame such bosses and supervisors instead of blaming me. If you think I am aggressive, maybe you also lower the level of job interviews, and then you should blame yourself, too )
Second, if it’s a supervisor rejects to answer such a question, sometimes this means that the supervisor doesn’t know the answer or doesn’t know how to answer it. Such a supervisor is incompetent. In this case, the supervisor is considering his own personal interest and utilizing “the welfare of the company” as an excuse.
Because of the above reasons, if a boss or a supervisor has such a thought, this company or this supervisor is indeed “toxic”, just as the American said.

As the answers to these questions should be provided to candidates for their understanding of this position or this company, there is no point in phrasing them in a more subtle and indirect way. Bosses and supervisors, why not just let candidates ask these questions “directly” instead of asking indirectly? You still have to answer such a question when it is asked in an indirect way, so I don’t know what you care about. Your pathetic arrogance if your candidate doesn’t ask you such a question indirectly, treats you like an emperor, and is scared of you becoming angry when asking such a question? Ridiculous. Candidates, if you think it’s good to “respect” supervisors and bosses by asking such a question “indirectly”, you are wrong. Why can’t you just ask these questions “directly”? Your future employer still has to answer such a question when you ask it in an indirect way. It’s just a waste of energy in trying to think of some words to ask such a question indirectly. That’s all only because of the unreasonable demands from those outdated supervisors and bosses; otherwise, you shouldn’t need to do that.

The culture of having a dessert at work in the current modern time of Taiwan

At the current time, Taiwanese employees love to have bubble milk tea and some desserts in the afternoon with colleagues. This becomes a Taiwanese-style “afternoon tea” culture, and many young Taiwanese are very happy when doing that. A Korean thinks that having this Taiwanese-style afternoon tea save Taiwanese time from social time with colleagues after work; many Taiwanese agree with that. There is nothing wrong with having a little rest, eating some desserts, and having a small chat with your colleagues in the afternoon. However, some Taiwanese are very unhappy when a colleague rejects ordering desserts, drinks, or chatting with them in the afternoon. They dislike such a colleague, and they feel such a colleague who rejects joining their “afternoon tea” doesn’t fit in to be part of groups or is not a team player.

In my view, dislike and criticism toward such a colleague who rejects your afternoon tea are very unnecessary.

First, the hate and the criticism are because many Taiwanese prefer companions and hate being alone, as many Taiwanese don’t know how to be alone with only themselves. Many articles said that being an adult means you need to learn how to be alone with only yourself. Well said, so grow up. Why don’t you just eat alone what you want to eat? Not to mention in most cases there is someone who likes to eat desserts with you. Fix your own psychological issue instead of blaming others.

Second, everyone has their own preference, and you should respect them. Why does everyone must eat something you want to eat with you or join the social time with you? One, disliking someone simply because someone doesn’t eat dessert or have a bubble milk tea with you is very childish and ridiculous you know^^? Grow up. As I said, everyone has their own preference. In your world, there is only “like” someone and “dislike” someone? Can’t you neither like nor dislike someone and work with and cooperate with them at work professionally? You are the one who can’t work well with a team. Two, if a person doesn’t want to be friends with you, that’s nothing bad. Doesn’t want to be friends with you doesn’t mean she/he hates you or she/he will set you up at work; it only means as the word says: She/he doesn’t want to make friends with you or colleagues. Why must you need every colleague to be your friend? As I said in Point 6, Part 5 of this article, some people just don’t like to make friends, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Third, if you want a colleague who doesn’t want to eat dessert or chat with you to eat deserts and chat with you, and otherwise thinks that person is “uncooperative”, what is the difference between you and the supervisor or colleagues who want employees to join the social time after work, and otherwise think an employee is “uncooperative”? An employee just want to get relaxed, have his own time with his family, personal friends, or himself, and therefore doesn’t want to join the social time with colleagues after work.

Fourth, “fit in be parts of groups” or “not a team player”?
One, what is there any relationship between “fitting in be part of a group” with “eating a desert or chatting with you”? Just because someone doesn’t want to eat dessert or chat with you doesn’t mean she/he won’t be cooperative with you “at work”. It’s ridiculous that many Taiwanese use “fitting in be part of groups” to justify their desire for someone to eat desserts or chat with them in the afternoon. Someone who doesn’t want to eat desserts with you doesn’t mean that she/he will definitely be “uncooperative” with you in doing work together or disapprove of your ideas at work. If she/he disapproves of your idea at work, what you should first think about is whether she/he disagree with your idea for some reasonable reasons instead of hating her for simply believing the event that she/he doesn’t eat desserts or chat with you is a sign. It’s ridiculous, you know? As I said, can’t you neither like nor dislike someone and work with and cooperate with them at work professionally? You are the one who can’t work well with a team.
Two, why must someone “fit in be parts of groups” or “a team player”?
At work, if the idea of the majority of the group is better, certainly the other person who proposes different ideas needs to agree with the better idea from the group. Someone whose personality doesn’t fit in be parts of groups can still do that if she/he has a reasonable mind and enough abilities to judge reasonably.
On the other side, if someone’s idea is better, her/his idea should be adopted even if the majority of the group dislikes it, as something is unfavored doesn’t mean something must be bad: It sometimes just means that thing doesn’t suit your personal preference, and you should evaluate your colleague’s ideas “specifically” and “objectively” rather than doing that based on your personal preference.
Equally importantly, someone who is not a team player simply means she/he isn’t good at getting along with people; it doesn’t mean that she/he can’t cooperate well with groups or can’t listen to the opinions of other people, not mention that many people who are good at getting along with people can’t listen to opinions of others. It’s never about whether a person is good at getting along with people or not; it’s about a person’s ability and whether they are humble enough or not. Again, “cooperating well with others” doesn’t mean someone must eat desserts or chat with you. In addition, if someone can’t cooperate well with a group, you have to think if it’s because of office politics or because the supervisor didn’t have a proper work division for employees; in some cases, one of the two is the problem, not the employee or the colleague who doesn’t get along with people is a problem.

By the way, the above words also should be given to old/young colleagues/supervisors who force people to smoke with them, either at work or after work, or old/young colleagues/supervisors who force people to drink lots of bottles of whiskey in one night with them, not to mention that even teenagers know that smoking or drink too much (lots of bottles of whiskey) is very unhealthy.

Read the last part: Part 9 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