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 company’s overall office environment is good, divided into two office areas: a new and an old one. The new office is fully equipped, including sit-stand desks and ergonomic chairs.
The work is varied, offering exposure to multiple roles and broad learning opportunities.
There are bonuses for the three major holidays as well as a year-end bonus, and employees receive 10 days of leave from the beginning of their employment.
The interview process is well organized, and the interviewers are friendly.
Some departments are not eligible for working from home (WFH), resulting in unequal benefits and requiring long-term office attendance. The company also does not provide typhoon days off.
Most of the department’s staff have left, training is insufficient, and new employees must figure things out on their own after joining.
The multiple-supervisor system can easily lead to inconsistent instructions, with a clear case of too many people giving orders.
The scope of work is too broad: one person must handle multiple roles, resulting in high pressure and limited support.
The company is ISO-certified, but its procedures and paperwork are cumbersome. Information is scattered, and there is a lack of handover from former employees.
Bonuses for the three major holidays are stated only in the policies; it is unclear whether they are actually paid.
The job duties differ slightly from how they were described during the interview, and the actual scope of work may be broader than expected.
Some processes have not yet been standardized, so employees need to figure out the documentation handover and work methods on their own.
Career development is relatively limited in direction, with few opportunities for promotion or rotation.
The interview was conducted in two stages.
2. Interview details: The first stage was an interview with the project manager and a fellow designer.
Remote “Work-Life Balance”: Two remote-work days per week
The entire interview was one-sided, and the fellow designer did not leave the interviewee with a very good impression. They remained focused on rushing through the interview time and did not show the interviewee much tolerance or provide feedback on how to improve.
The assignment instructions actually stated that the explanation only needed to be ten minutes long, but the fellow designer’s questions were overly detailed. They did not explain the purpose behind their questions, or they phrased them in a rhetorical, challenging tone, creating a situation that felt like they were deliberately making things difficult. (For example: “You said you wanted to improve XXX, but you don’t have XX information. Do you really think there’s no problem with designing it this way?”) This tone and questioning style raises concerns about whether there may be issues with future collaboration.
One question was also: “You think the business model of your previous company was inconvenient for end users, so why did you still adopt this model?”
I don’t think this is an appropriate question to ask a designer, because designers do not have the authority to decide on the business model. If the company is still in the early planning stages, I believe a UX designer can still have room to contribute.
The remote interview was great
The "Frontend CTO's" internet connection was terrible, frequently cutting in and out, and their face was blurry throughout the entire interview