飛騰雲端系統股份有限公司

1. My previous role here was more focused on sales. One benefit was being able to work with a group of highly capable colleagues. Everyone seemed to have extensive experience in the industry, and almost no client question ever stumped them. The product was also quite well known in HR circles, so there were essentially more cases than we could handle without any business development at all. (I heard the company has never spent a single cent on marketing; its clients mainly come through word of mouth.)

2. Each year, the company fully subsidizes one overseas trip (for employees with at least one year of service), as well as one domestic trip to a five-star hotel.

3. I won’t go into the other standard benefits, such as birthday leave, free health checkups, employee gatherings, and so on.

4. The internal consultants and engineers are both quite easy to communicate with. At the software companies I worked for previously, most R&D departments were very difficult to deal with... That isn’t the case here. Apparently, this is because the owner has written software, worked as a consultant, and eventually worked in sales himself, so he only hires people who are both highly capable and easy to work with...

1. Aside from the sales department, the office atmosphere is relatively quiet. Most people are busy making phone calls and looking at their computers. I found it difficult to adjust at first, but gradually got used to it.

2. The work pressure is relatively high, but it doesn’t come from the company. It comes from seeing how capable everyone else is, which makes you worry about not being able to keep up.

3. If you can make it through the first three-month probationary period, there generally aren’t many problems afterward. However, the psychological pressure is indeed quite high at the beginning.

None

Below is my interview experience today. I interviewed for the Business Assistant position in Kaohsiung.

I submitted my résumé on 1/19 to apply for the position mentioned above. The company immediately sent me an interview invitation on the afternoon of 1/21, asking me to attend the interview at 10:00 a.m. on 1/28. From the moment I sat down, before I had even had a sip of water, the interview ended abruptly within just 10 minutes. The attitude of the Kaohsiung interviewer made me extremely uncomfortable, and I also found the company’s résumé screening process puzzling.

1. The job duties did not match the actual requirements: Based on the job description below, this position should essentially be categorized as a “front desk administrative staff” role, leaning toward “general affairs.” However, on the day of the interview, the interviewer repeatedly asked me questions related to human resources regulations, such as how to calculate overtime pay for national holidays and which industries are subject to the Labor Standards Act’s “one rest day after every seven days” rule. These questions were completely unrelated to the position, making me question whether there was a discrepancy between the company’s résumé screening and its job description. How can the company advertise the position under the name “Administrative Assistant” while requiring applicants to have the capabilities of an “HR customer service representative”? Furthermore, the job description made no mention of any personnel-related requirements, yet the interviewer repeatedly brought them up and demanded that I answer questions about them. This was not only strange but also made me feel that the company’s recruitment process was extremely careless and disrespectful.

2. The interviewer’s arrogant attitude: The interviewer was extremely arrogant and spoke to the applicant in a condescending manner, repeatedly looking at my résumé with suspicion and questioning my abilities. Two things in particular made me uncomfortable: 1. The interviewer shouted loudly across the office to the receptionist, “Tell them to come straight in!!” This attitude was extremely rude and questionable. 2. After seeing my experience as an “English Secretary,” the interviewer asked, “So your English must be very good!” I replied that, since English was my major and my previous work was also related to foreign languages, my proficiency had reached a certain level. The interviewer responded, “Oh! Is that so!” This made me feel extremely disrespected and looked down upon. In the end, the interviewer abruptly concluded by saying, “We have many applicants. We’ll notify you later. Thank you for making the trip; it was a lot of trouble. I think you’re very ambitious.” I was completely stunned at the time (^___^????????—that really was my expression). If that was the case, shouldn’t the company clearly state the hiring requirements in the job description instead of using the name “Administrative Assistant” while blindly casting a wide net? This not only wastes job applicants’ time but also makes the company seem unprofessional and makes applicants feel like disposable chopsticks or people brought in merely for a chat!!

*Job Duties

1. Reception duties (answering and taking messages for telephone calls).

2. Receiving visitors, managing meeting rooms, and handling environmental maintenance.

3. Registering incoming and outgoing mail.

4. Updating the internal extension and vendor contact telephone lists.

5. Ordering and managing stationery and consumables, and preparing stationery and supplies for meetings.

6. Handling Ghost Festival offerings and worship ceremonies.

7. Arranging birthday luncheons.

8. Assisting with the dispatch, maintenance, and processing of contracts, as well as check collection.

9. Other temporary tasks assigned by supervisors.

The company benefits are really good, and the engineers there all seem quite professional. The interviewer had reviewed the candidate’s résumé before the interview, rather than looking through the materials only after the candidate arrived. If I could successfully join the company, it should be pretty good.

I’m not sure whether I should be grateful that the company gave me an interview opportunity or whether I was simply brought in by HR to meet a performance quota. As soon as the interviewer came in, they stated directly that the candidate’s résumé did not meet the company’s hiring requirements, but still invited the candidate in for a chat. Perhaps the interviewer felt that the candidate did not meet the company’s criteria, so the interview consisted mostly of casual conversation. However, I didn’t really understand the purpose of some of the questions—for example, “You live in XX District, while your previous company was in XX District. Why did you go work there?” (Who doesn’t want to find a job closer to home? XD Besides, the two places aren’t that far apart.)

The interviewer’s questions were also extremely detailed. Some questions were quite probing and sensitive. During the interview, they kept asking what system my previous company used, why the company’s senior management chose to use that system, and so on. Maybe I’m overthinking it, but looking back now, I’m not sure whether asking such in-depth questions served some other purpose. I recommend that interviewees not answer too quickly if they are asked probing or sensitive questions during an interview; take a moment to consider whether you want to answer.