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 guidelinesThe benefits package sounds quite good.
I suggest that before inviting someone to an interview, the company first confirm whether they have a car, can drive, and have experience with cold calling, to avoid wasting both parties’ time. After filling out a lot of personal information and completing a bunch of tests, they only then ask whether you have your own car—and if you don’t, they tell you to leave.
Compared with many exploitative bosses, the chairman is actually quite considerate toward employees. The benefits exceed those required by the Labor Standards Act, and on occasions such as traditional offering ceremonies, New Year's Eve, and Lunar New Year, employees are allowed to leave work early.
A very typical family business. The senior executives are all relatives of the chairman, while unrelated employees, no matter how experienced, can only carry a managerial title without any real authority. Every day, you see these relatives either rushing around aimlessly or slacking off, without making any substantive contributions.
There are no payslips. Anyone who wants one has to ask the vice president of finance for it personally every month. At first, I thought there might be some undisclosed issue with the salaries, but there wasn't—it was probably simply because they couldn't be bothered to provide them.
The managers have been with the company for an extremely long time and are disconnected from the business environment outside. They don't know how to manage the company or its employees, so the entire company is like a carriage pulled by several horses in different directions, leaving employees at the bottom completely at a loss.
The company's hardware and software are outdated, and so are its ideas. A great deal of time is spent on meaningless forms and meetings, and duplicated work happens every day. Meetings feel like university students discussing an assignment. In particular, the system limits the number of simultaneous users, so we often want to log in to look up information—such as inventory, orders, or customer payments—but are unable to do so.
During the interview, you may feel that the company has a well-developed plan for its employees, but in reality, it only manages recruitment and does not care what happens after new hires onboard. The so-called training is absurdly inadequate, and new employees are left very confused. Regardless of whether they have relevant industry experience, it is difficult to stay for long, and the gaps in seniority are enormous.
The KPI process is merely a formality. The managers don't even know how to set KPI items; employees just need to sign, without worrying about what the items are. Even if the chairman values talent, he cannot truly stay close to the employees at the bottom. The managers who hold the key to year-end bonuses are very stingy.
Conclusion:
This company is neither particularly good nor particularly bad. It is a company that rose with the tide, without any real concept of management—even when interviewing new employees, they don't know how to ask questions.
It is suitable for people just entering the workforce or changing industries who want to build up their resumes, but don't stay too long. Given the company's situation, you won't learn much in-depth expertise. It is suitable for people who want a comfortable, stable job and are looking to coast until retirement.