Sources and scope
This page collects workplace experiences, questions and discussions submitted by users. Dates shown are submission dates, not periods of employment. Individual reports do not describe the entire company.
Read the community guidelinesNone
The store is full of mature apps. Have you never used any of them, or what? Are you still living in the Stone Age?
Some people understand after one or two explanations, while certain others still do not understand after four or five explanations. In the end, the conclusion is always that “PGs are difficult to communicate with.”
One person who was promoted to PM has a lot of rules. When a problem is discovered, it cannot be fixed directly; we have to wait for them to discover it themselves before dealing with it. How long are we supposed to wait?
They are even “so capable” that multiple PGs from other teams are needed to support their projects.
The project team may think PGs have too much time. Requirements can ask for A today, change to B the next day, and then change to C a few days later. Even the planning has to be done by PGs.
Some projects have even become a matter of doing whatever the client says, without considering technical feasibility or subsequent maintenance costs at all.
Some work items only have a title and no details, so PGs have to figure them out through clairvoyance. They even want to interfere directly in how PGs design and develop things.
Under this management model, they keep pursuing development speed while ignoring design quality, so it is no surprise that the technical debt can never be cleared.
Even problems with their own operating methods are treated as bugs. That is really something.
One team, however, is accustomed to cutting in line to handle its work, while cases from other teams are left to rot, as if the entire company has to operate around them.
---
Before starting any new feature, we have to dig up the bugs left behind from the past.
What is amazing is that the features were developed by someone else, yet all kinds of problems gradually appear after release.
We repeatedly clean up problems left by predecessors. After rapid development, it may look as though something has been delivered, but in the end it still has to be scrapped and redone.
The former development manager still rated colleagues like this highly. No wonder the same problems keep recurring.
It turns out that people who “create problems” are called diligent, while those who “solve problems” are called people who are not working.
Some systems cannot even pass review, yet a great deal of time is spent rewriting the entire project architecture.
On multiple systems and both platforms, the same place can display different screens and produce different results. I do not know how the PMs and development managers are keeping things in check.
Broken pages keep appearing in the production version, and this is called a complete system.
The former development manager only listens to the project team. The many problems within the team’s projects have remained unimproved for a long time.
They may even forget the names of their own team members, making people wonder whether they are truly involved in team management in the first place. They really are “focused” on their work.
---
The test environment is fine, but a large number of problems appear after release. The production version really is like a test version, and even dirty data appears.
Every day is spent either fixing bugs or communicating about them, followed by turning around and criticizing PG development efficiency.
Overtime cannot be requested for fixing problems; employees have to squeeze in their own time to deal with them. Do all the good deeds and make the virtue complete.
System optimization and maintenance are always “something to discuss later.” As long as the deliverable can be produced, that is all that matters; otherwise, we have to negotiate additional fees with the client before handling it.
---
I never expected PGs here to be responsible not only for development, but also for system analysis and for acting as babysitters to manage the emotions of certain giant babies.
People come to the IT industry without needing to understand systems, yet they keep asking basic questions and making PGs explain things over and over.
I suggest the project team develop everything themselves. They can do whatever they want; who needs engineers?
After all, no matter how much advice engineers give, it is ultimately treated as words falling on deaf ears.
Some people only know how to be strict with others while being lenient with themselves, specializing in picking faults in others.
They use an entirely different standard for their own work, and still have time to privately fool around with various pointless matters.
They turn simple tasks into complicated ones. What great efficiency—that is what “working diligently” means in the eyes of senior management.
Some managers are more like mascots. After all, just leave the difficult problems to senior colleagues. They are really good at delegation.
They usually only listen to the project team’s opinions, yet lack an understanding of the actual situation of their own team members and the projects they are responsible for. Truly impressive.
---
Many people can only work overtime on their own until the early hours of the morning, and some are still online handling problems in the middle of the night. This happens in both projects and development.
Applying for overtime is easily met with criticism from managers, as if handling problems during working hours were not diligent enough.
Some people like to treat exploitation as training. Over time, it becomes normal, but the company may not thank you for your efforts as a result.
Everyone is on the same team, yet they operate like independent entities. Differences in understanding between projects and development easily arise, and there seems to be no sense of team cohesion.
This is what they call company culture, teamwork, and communication. Some people even strongly identify with this culture. All I can say is, I admire them.
---
Those apologists must be working really hard. Perhaps they could write more whitewashing achievements in the performance Excel sheet; after all, at your company, you have to fight for your own raise.
Finally, whether you are a PG or want to work in project management, I suggest that anyone considering joining think it over carefully. It is very easy to become emotionally drained here.
No one will tell you what kind of mess the project really is. After taking it over, you can only investigate the past yourself and figure things out through clairvoyance.
If the work environment is really that good, why can’t it retain people?
Your company only solves the problems raised by people, rather than addressing those who are themselves the problem.
Please be advised: if you are considering joining this company, it is best to read more reviews and not waste your time on a company like this.
Actually, I haven't been here for very long.
I found that my team is actually very nice.
They're all fairly easy to communicate with, and the engineers are also very patient.
The engineers' leader doesn't put on airs just because they are more senior.
That is truly rare.
I may not really like writing documents for the public sector.
For internal documents, I suggest using AI to generate User Stories from the specifications and requirements, then making minor revisions to improve communication efficiency.
Map User Stories to feature development and narrow the scope.
This makes SDD development smoother.
I left some time ago. Setting aside the individual conduct of the Android engineer,
I actually think the company could slow down the process of introducing AI into development. On one hand, the technology is iterating too quickly; on the other hand, the schedule pressure can leave everyone struggling to keep up.
If I really have to talk about a drawback:
After all, the human brain isn't a computer, let alone AI, so it can't handle
parallelism; the brain will deadlock.
None
1. The team culture is that they only like obedient employees with no opinions of their own—good children who do whatever the company says (employees who enjoy being subjected to PUA).
2. There is no mentoring system for newcomers. To put it nicely, the style is flexible: if you have a problem, just ask. In reality, the supervisor simply does not want to take on the responsibilities of being a supervisor or proactively mentor people.
3. During an interview with a newly hired employee, the team leader directly said that they do not really like experienced people and think blank slates are easier to manage. My inner monologue: Then why did you hire me?
4. None of the performance review criteria are related to the projects I am handling. They are all vague performance evaluation items, and it is unclear how they are supposed to be observed or assessed.
5. From onboarding through every interview before leaving the company, they always make you feel that you are not serious enough or proactive enough. They keep repeating that the PMs/SAs are not graduates of the relevant fields, and that as an engineer you should help them more. I came here to work, not to be a babysitter.
6. There is a PM supervisor who specializes in getting rid of junior PMs they dislike, while the senior PM supervisor acts like an elementary school student, constantly tattling. If you pick up your phone for a few minutes after debugging all day, they will say you spent the entire day playing on your phone and doing nothing.
7. The SA lacks project management skills, systems analysis skills, and systems architecture skills. Every day, they act as the PM's mouthpiece and still have the nerve to laugh and joke around, only dumping the responsibility on the PG to figure things out themselves. Damn, is the salary really that easy to earn?
8. From the company year-end banquet at the beginning of 2025 through October, despite having fewer than 90 employees company-wide, nearly 20 people in total—including newly hired employees—left. If you want to work in the software industry, that's fine; just don't work at this company, because people here will do everything possible to engage in internal fighting, emotionally blackmail you, or dump work and responsibilities that do not belong to you on you simply because you are new.
There are really a lot of “talented people” here
This is a place full of buck-passing, low work efficiency, and people who like forming little cliques
*****
Some teams have very poor project management skills and an insufficient understanding of development requirements
They always talk about “project management,” yet the requirements keep changing, resulting in endless rework
All day long, they are either “communicating” or squeezing engineers’ development time, constantly repeating themselves like a broken record
They even question why engineers are progressing slowly and sometimes set delivery dates themselves
They are poor at schedule management, yet think they are very capable
-
PMs and SAs create work items for PGs, but the content is often long-winded and misses the point, or contains nothing at all
When PGs raise issues for discussion, they act impatiently
They can keep asking repetitive questions, while PGs are expected to respond politely; otherwise, they are accused of having a bad attitude
Even when a problem is clearly identified, PGs cannot create a work item themselves. They can only wait for the PMs or SAs to test and open one before they can start working
There are countless rules that merely increase processing time and communication costs in practice—this is what those managers teach
-
Some PMs rely on their good relationship with managers to make a group of PGs work overtime on small projects, while assigning only one PG to large projects
They even interrupt discussions of serious matters with idle chatter and show no respect for others
I once saw a PM and PG in a meeting when an SA under a certain senior PM directly took the PG away, showing complete disrespect for the other PMs
Managers, PMs, and SAs also like criticizing PGs behind their backs in clique group chats, or whispering gossip into the vice president’s ear
One PM was told many times who should handle certificates, yet still kept going in circles and pushed the issue back to us
-
SAs look more like assistants to the managers and PMs
Some people are unfamiliar with the testing process and blame PGs as soon as a problem or unexpected result appears
Further investigation often reveals that the problem lies in the operating procedure itself, not to mention that these are system platforms they use regularly
Some can only follow instructions and get stuck without explicit directions
I have also encountered people who needed the same issue explained repeatedly and who fixated on trivial matters
I have even encountered someone asking the PG what the original requirements were
One PM took leave or left early for personal reasons during a release, dumping all the testing work on the SA
*****
After completing APIs, some WEB PGs do not verify the data themselves first, but directly hand them over to the SA and APP teams for testing
Testing then revealed that the synchronization API did not respond at all, while the storage API had written two completely identical records to the database
Even after repeated reports, they still did not investigate the cause and only shifted the blame, making the project team think it was an APP issue
It took a week to resolve, and the result was that the problem was on the API side—wasting half a month of the APP team engineers’ testing time on repeated tests
In the end, they just laughed it off. With this kind of work attitude, someone can still become a manager and even be promoted to department head
-
There are also PGs who do not even know which APIs they themselves wrote and always have to ask the APP team to help find them
They often break the system and delay other teams’ delivery schedules
On one particularly outrageous occasion, someone directly requested the JSON response and could not even be bothered to use Postman
The APP team manager only assumed that their own team members were progressing slowly
-
Some members of the APP team stubbornly believe that their own ideas are always right
They frequently “create BUGs”: every time they implement a new feature, the existing functionality has a chance of breaking, and others ultimately have to clean up the mess
One senior colleague takes leave from time to time, yet insists that everything be done according to his ideas
Simply because a new tool was used, he demanded that other platforms adapt and make changes
He even overturned a time format that had long been discussed and adjusted, while acting completely self-righteous
A WEB PG had previously explained the direction for adjusting an API, and everyone had already cooperated and made the corresponding changes
Yet he only noticed it several months later, turned off message notifications, and blamed others for not telling him
-
There was also a team member whose architecture used more than two View Models on a single page
There were also BUGs left behind by a departing team member; upgrading a package alone caused everything to break after deployment, and later investigation found that an incorrect implementation from before was still being used
Yet that person had previously been promoted by a manager to a junior management role and received an exceptionally high performance rating
-
After becoming a PM, one manager had an insufficient understanding of new technologies and could only ask, “What are the benefits?” For things they did not understand, they relied on AI to study
The old projects they took over often required “spiritual communication” to understand. Most of the code was copied and pasted, then patched and modified
Some of it had even been written by WEB PGs, iOS PGs, and managers
A great deal of time was spent refactoring, yet managers often assumed we were doing nothing. Aren’t we repairing the technical debt they created?
They were also very lax themselves, yet could criticize team members and periodically spout nonsense
-
Performance reviews were based either on impressions or on acting as the mouthpiece for a certain project team and nitpicking, with endless broken-record repetition and double standards
Someone even said the absurd line, “I’ve never given anyone a high score.” With this hands-off management style, it is naturally impossible to see team members’ contributions
Self-evaluations and managers’ evaluations are actually unimportant, because the final decision rests with the vice president
Some performance criteria are even demanded by the vice president and have nothing to do with work performance
*****
Some technical managers have limited development abilities; when they do not understand something, they ask senior architecture engineers or rely on AI to study
They are also easily led by project teams, merely responsible for directing the PGs below them. They draw high salaries while failing to do their own jobs
Some managers have good relationships with certain PMs and only stay involved in small-project development, assigning several PGs to small projects
Yet they assign only one PG to shoulder a large project, leaving that PG switching between multiple projects every day to investigate problems
They simply stand to the side as “mascots,” offering no practical help. They are better at ordering drinks and chatting than working
-
The company strongly promotes AI for improving development efficiency and rapidly completing code with AI
However, most people do not verify whether the code is correct. After release, there are countless problems, followed by several weeks spent investigating their causes
What incredible efficiency—a “genius” masterpiece, repeated across several projects
*****
Senior management loves using phrases such as “weathering difficult times together” and “everyone is growing” to comfort and deceive themselves
The vice president works overtime and drags employees along too; having one person shoulder multiple projects at the same time has become the norm
This is especially true of several senior architecture engineers, who are clearly being worked to exhaustion
To senior management, this is called growth—not exploitation, and certainly not asking employees to perform unpaid charity
Recently, the company has often provided drinks and snacks, using these small perks to placate employees while refusing to offer substantive rewards
-
You have to ask your manager yourself for a raise, but to be blunt, they only want to promote employees who are good at “managing upward” and “being obedient”
Senior management only says, “If you’re capable, come and get it.” It is laughable. Their management style is simply to let things run themselves, so naturally they cannot see anyone’s contributions
-
The internal newsletter is always selling grand visions that are impossible to swallow if your appetite is too small. Senior management only wants to hear pleasant words; whenever there are negative voices, they start looking for someone to blame
Some managers only direct others and sit around waiting for things to be delivered, while frequently making bad decisions
They habitually place the burden on specific people and have it far too easy themselves
Yet they remain unwilling to confront the problem of managers doing nothing, even bringing in a technical director to put out the fires
-
They take on a pile of contract projects without assessing whether there is enough manpower. Some of the systems are completely trivial and pointless
They waste huge amounts of manpower. After one previous project went live, it suffered many problems and even crashed, receiving severe criticism online
After releases of different projects, they need hotfixes and always like to cut in line. Several projects have to be fixed in a week, and the kind that break after going live
Managers refuse to approve overtime applications, clearly expecting employees to work for free; some colleagues even work overtime voluntarily
*****
Many people say you can “build your skills” here, but most of the practice consists of fixing BUGs left by others
Whether WEB or APP projects, there is a great deal of technical debt, and optimization is always postponed
For the project teams, it is all a waste of time; they only hope to maintain the status quo and keep things from breaking
Some projects like embedding RWD webpages in APPs, resulting in countless problems and requiring them to borrow colleagues’ phones everywhere for testing
-
PGs’ suggestions are rarely adopted. As long as the system is designed however the project team wants, PGs are expected to build it
They completely disregard the different system characteristics of different platforms and only want the screens to look identical, so requirements are frequently changed midway
After being changed again and again, it is no wonder that technical debt keeps piling up. The resulting systems are extremely difficult to use; they only care about putting on a superficial show for external and internal audiences
-
The pay is not great, but there is plenty of nonsense. I do not recommend staying long, because the longer you stay, the more of the kinds of awful situations described above you will see
The projects themselves offer little challenge or growth because they merely satisfy customer requirements, and the project teams do not analyze whether those requirements are feasible
The project teams look busy all day, but whether they are genuinely busy or merely busywork is truly impossible to say
Staying here always leaves you inexplicably exhausted and makes it very easy to burn yourself out
*****
This is a communication hell where people like playing office politics, and there are really a lot of “talented people”
I do not recommend that capable people come here; capable employees will be overworked, while the managers are mediocre
Almost every project requires “spiritual communication” to figure out what previous people wrote
-
If you are good at putting on a superficial show, you will get by with ease
If you enjoy studying technology and want to grow, this place is not suitable for you—think carefully
Most teammates stubbornly cling to their own opinions and are not very willing to expand their understanding. Only a few are willing to exchange ideas; you might as well ask AI
-
Senior management likes splitting one position into multiple job titles. It looks impressive, but feels like nothing more than an attempt to lower labor costs
Turnover is high; more than a dozen people left in 2025 alone, and the company cannot retain people
Take the talk about developing talent with a grain of salt—they always seem to be looking for disposable employees
Some reviews say the annual banquet gives out generous prizes. I disagree, because winning is purely by chance; do not expect too much
-
There is simply too much I have seen and heard to put into words, and I cannot recommend it. Join Lichen and work until midnight.
Can't think of any advantages.
On the surface, it's an agricultural information company, but in reality, it's a contract development company.
The colleagues are fairly harmonious, but the management...呵呵, truly no comment.
Tasks are assigned to PGs for execution, but PMs/SAs continue adding requirements during implementation. Sometimes PGs discover issues only after starting work, and resolving them may have to wait until the Year of the Monkey. In the end, all problems are shifted onto PGs to take the blame. Don't forget that PGs are the ones who make the wishes come true. If PMs/SAs are inefficient, doesn't that reflect the incompetence of the managers above them?
Managers only stay busy flattering the vice president and act merely as messengers, constantly ordering people around. They insist that PMs/SAs/PGs complete assigned tasks; whenever something goes wrong, PMs/SAs/PGs have to shoulder the responsibility. Performance reviews are also scored based on personal impressions.
The company's annual revenue is written up in grand terms, but employees don't seem to receive any of the benefits. I've also heard that some people did not receive year-end bonuses. Even when projects are understaffed, the company is unwilling to hire more people.
And then there's the promotion system—truly a "genius" design. Each level adds the same amount of money, so the percentage increase gets smaller the further up you go, while the requirements become increasingly stringent. Yet they still dare to claim that salaries are competitive with those of other companies in the industry. You can see them but can't actually get them; in the end, it still depends on your manager's "impression" of you or your skill at flattering them.
Employees have suggested improving the benefits, but most proposals have been rejected. Travel benefits were simply changed to subsidies.
Training courses are occasionally offered, but there is no noticeable growth, and communication and execution efficiency remain just as poor.
The company's turnover rate is quite high, with people leaving from time to time. PMs/SAs/PGs considering joining should think twice—unless you're a masochist or a willing servant.
After joining, you'll only encounter endless "bugs created by predecessors" or bizarre requirements. Every time, the person taking over is left to clean up the mess, and the problems can never be completely fixed.
As stated previously, it's suitable for honing your skills and using as a stepping stone, but not for staying long-term, because the longer you work there, the less room for growth you'll have, which will affect your career. You won't be able to change the status quo either.
The system operation is also beyond comment. Moreover, more than 90% of the employees use iPhones, so why not just hire more iOS engineers to promote the iOS app and scrap the Android app, saving some money.
Employee benefits-
For Kaohsiung, this is considered a company that complies with the Labor Standards Act. The company is located in the Kaohsiung Science Park.
The company has an employee welfare committee, with a monthly afternoon-tea quota.
The office occupies two floors. There are more people on the 10th floor, so the seating is somewhat cramped for everyone.
Colleagues-
Relations among colleagues are fairly pleasant.
But supervisors are... a matter of personal opinion.
Having a good supervisor is like going to heaven, but unfortunately, you will not know which team you will be assigned to when you join.
Company systems-
The company mainly focuses on agricultural systems. It has agricultural management ERPs for small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as government contracts (the Council of Agriculture and the Agriculture and Food Agency),
so half of the company’s employees graduated in agriculture-related technology fields, while the other half graduated in information-related fields.
Company culture-
The company’s general manager, deputy general manager, and most key positions are held by the company’s four original founders.
However, because the four founders established the company immediately after graduation without experience in the outside industry, they often use very narrow-minded perspectives to PUA employees.
After all, they have been in senior positions for many years, while practical work is delegated to people below them. As a result, they evaluate employees from a self-assumed perspective, expect employees to work and contribute like robots, and judge everything solely by results, without empathizing with employees or viewing their efforts from a more humane perspective.
They treat employees like robots and disposable chopsticks, and do not care about employees’ abilities. What they promote verbally is inconsistent with how those actually in charge implement things. Basically, they only like obedient employees without opinions—good children who do whatever the company says. (Employees who enjoy being PUAed.)
(The comments from former employees posted on Tianyancha 6–7 years ago show that nothing has improved since then.)
Management ability-
This company is mainly divided into three departments (originally four). The company only allows people who have been there a long time—not necessarily those with ability—to rise to senior positions.
Therefore, what this company values is knowing how to manage upward, writing polished presentations and performance reports for top management,
while most department heads do their best to keep writing about how good and outstanding they are instead of developing their subordinates.
Some departments are even worse: certain PMs privately undermine SAs and try their best to curry favor with people in deputy-general-manager positions so they can rise themselves.
Everyone hired as a PM at this company must first work as an SA, because the four founders think you are not qualified enough
(only people who have stayed a long time and those they consider insiders are exempt). As a Tianyancha veteran said, you apply for position A, but after joining, you are told to do position B,
and then criticized for supposedly lacking ability.
Although the supervisors are also acting this way as a means of survival, the main reason is that their abilities are extremely inadequate.
Therefore, the highly paid PM position is actually just being a mouthpiece: after passing problems down, PMs leave everything to the SAs and PGs below them to figure out.
Some supervisors even communicate requirements incorrectly and do not know how to allocate manpower or control schedules, resulting in severe rework problems for the team, while the PM is unable to consolidate conclusions for the client.
Project priorities and execution are always shifted onto people below to bear responsibility.
Meanwhile, supervisors only do things that make themselves look good and allow clients or senior internal management to see their achievements (all of which are the result of the team’s efforts),
and then repeatedly PUA the team, saying that internal staff lack ability or do not meet the company’s expectations, using other demeaning language.
Incompetent supervisors are very good at picking on the easy targets. They push all difficult tasks onto subordinates under the pretext of training their abilities,
while the resources provided are merely a pile of unorganized materials.
(However, incompetent supervisors believe they have provided many resources.) They avoid touching anything that would be disadvantageous to themselves or prevent them from showing their abilities, and give clients a long list of excuses to evade responsibility.
Yet their reports to senior internal management describe everything as if they handled it themselves and perfectly controlled the project progress and client communication.
SAs and PGs are also treated like assistants to certain PMs. They must additionally write presentations explaining new or maintenance features until the PM understands them,
or help write issue-resolution documents for reporting to clients. In the end, the PM even puts their own name on documents written by others.
Promotion and salary increases-
Basically, employees who have stayed at this company for 3–5 years have never received a raise. Although the year-end bonuses (apart from the grand prize, which is a phone, the prizes are cash) are fairly generous,
the company actually has good revenue every year but never gives raises. As a result, employees become disappointed and leave after completing 3–5 years.
The promotion system recently proposed by the company’s deputy general manager is, honestly, laughable... It is still neither open nor transparent, and in the end, the final decision is still based on the personal preferences of top management.
(In other words, you have to keep making yourself known to senior management, constantly appear in front of them, or continually show off your performance.)
It is not based on the final score within the company’s purported performance-evaluation criteria. All of this affects the distribution of year-end bonuses.
There was also an SA who rescued a project for an incompetent supervisor, but because the deputy general manager personally helped with coding, the SA was still unfairly penalized.
Even though the incompetent supervisor gave the employee a good performance rating, the employee ultimately received only 0.5 months’ worth of year-end bonus. When asked, the supervisor could only say that it was not their decision (the king of blame-shifting) and then shrug.
There was also a senior PG who was unfairly penalized at the final stage by the department head and ultimately received no year-end bonus.
Things like this are not limited to recent incidents. Performance evaluations are opaque every year and are highly biased and based on personal subjective opinions.
Advice-
If you have just graduated or are from a non-information-related major and want to switch into the field, you could take a look, but staying for a long time offers no benefits.
If you already have a certain amount of work experience, joining will really only mean that the more capable you are, the more work you will be given, without corresponding compensation or recognition.
You will also have to shoulder a lot of responsibility for things you did not cause, making it hard work with little reward.
If you are considering a job with regular working hours and have a family to care for, this could be a good choice if you can tolerate these incompetent supervisors and the company’s individualistic system.
1. The HR professionals were highly competent, the entire interview process went smoothly, and the questions asked were well considered.
2. Everything from the interview invitation and interview process to extending the offer was handled very quickly, with written documentation provided throughout—not just verbal promises.
3. The technical manager also came across as very knowledgeable during the conversation.
1. The company's year-end bonus is not substantial, and there is no guaranteed 14-month salary, which is relatively uncommon in the technology industry.
The salary level is quite good for Kaohsiung, and the degree of freedom at work is relatively high. The company emphasizes harmony in its management, so there isn't much of an HL culture. Development working hours are generally normal, unless a project is very urgent. There isn't much overtime.
The Kaohsiung Software Park and office environment are quite good. The office isn't divided into traditional cubicles, so the atmosphere feels quite warm and human. The snack cabinet is restocked every week. There is an employee trip once a year. The benefits and working environment are quite good by Kaohsiung standards.
As for the work culture, PGs here need to communicate frequently with PMs and UX. If you communicate proactively and actively solve problems, the work here is fairly easy to handle.
The salary competency matrix is clearly laid out, but when it comes to salary adjustments, you need to make a "proactive" request. The company treats employees who genuinely contribute well when it is making profits.
If you are a developer with strong communication and coordination skills, and are willing to pursue technological innovation and have a reform-minded character, this would be a very suitable place for your development.
The company has been gradually transforming in recent years (since 2017), and there are many opportunities to demonstrate your abilities here.
Projects often end up being rushed, and it also feels like the barriers between the development and project teams still need more adjustment.
It would be better if the company could help employees with career planning and growth. I suggest that every employee meet with their supervisor each year to discuss the company's situation and their expected development. It might feel better if these meetings were divided between the first and second halves of the year.
Although growth is an individual's responsibility, it would be better for the company if management proactively helped employees achieve a sense of accomplishment and recognition within the company.
The supervisors provide a great deal of flexibility in work and are also very willing to offer opportunities. The working hours are quite normal, and the salary is fairly good for southern Taiwan.
You need to constantly communicate and coordinate with people in different roles, which can sometimes be a bit tiring.
The company has many projects, and there are also many colleagues.
The office atmosphere is very silent; hardly anyone communicates. Many people have changed, and only one person has stayed the same... If you naturally dislike communicating with people, prefer a place where no one says a word in the office, are afraid of noise, and dislike talkative people, this place is suitable for you.
They will sing you the birthday song on your birthday. You can claim overtime pay (but you have to beg your supervisor and get the unanimous consent of everyone involved).
The job you applied for, the duties and supervisor described in the acceptance email, and the actual job after being hired were completely different (even the programming language was different—how does that happen?). Everyone else knew who your supervisor was; you were the only one who still couldn’t figure out who your supervisor was. The supervisors constantly criticized you on LINE, but you had no idea what was going on. No one communicated with you or adjusted your workload. You could clearly feel that you were merely a tool for the company to make money. Aside from making money, there was absolutely no sense of human warmth—just a human machine for the company to make money by taking on projects. They really like hiring recent graduates, so if you’ve just graduated and want to work on projects, you could go there.