The Diversity We Decline to Adopt

We do not believe the following situations are suitable for inclusion within the same work team:

1. Circumstances We Explicitly Avoid

• In terms of work, having excessively large differences in standards regarding responsibility, quality, and results.
• An inability to discuss matters along the same axis of judgment.
• Bringing personal creeds or stances into professional judgments.
• Work decisions becoming slow or full of conflict due to differences in philosophy.

1. Regarding politics, religion, and personal stances

It specifically needs to be stated that: In our company, topics related to politics, religion, and so-called “Political Correctness” are not brought into the workplace.

The reason is simple—these matters are unrelated to work results.

These issues often cannot reach a consensus through discussion, yet they easily create emotional antagonism, slow down decision-making, and blur the focus of work. We believe that excluding these topics from the workplace is, in fact, the most fundamental form of mutual respect.

2. What Kind of Diversity Drives Us?

The following types of diversity are welcomed and actually exist:

• Different nationalities and cultural backgrounds.
• Different ages and career stages.
• Different professional expertise and skill combinations.
• Different perspectives of thinking and experiences.

1. There is only one prerequisite: Sharing fundamental core values.

In terms of work, we must be able to share fundamental values and criteria for judgment. This means we do not require everyone to have “identical thoughts”—you can offer different professional perspectives and propose non-mainstream solutions. However, we do require that when performing tasks, everyone is able to move forward based on the same standard.

In other words, while everyone certainly comes from completely different cultural backgrounds and holds unique personal creeds, when facing work decisions, please judge solely from the perspective of “what is most beneficial to the company and the client.” In these moments, diversity of personal preference is not required.

2. A simple scenario: When “personal habits” conflict with “problem-solving”

A client has encountered an urgent and serious anomaly and is feeling extremely anxious.
And your personal communication habit is “preferring text (Email/Messaging apps)” over making phone calls, because you feel that text provides a record and phone calls make you feel pressured.

❌ Decisions based on “personal preference” (Undesirable):

• Because you are afraid of making phone calls, you insist on only sending messages to the client.
• He thought to himself, “My principle is to keep written records of everything and not accept verbal communication.”
• Result: The customer, anxious and reading cold, impersonal text, felt unimportant, which significantly diminished their trust.

Making decisions based on “what is most beneficial for the company and its customers” (Aspirations):

• Determining that what the customer needs most at that moment is a “real-time sense of security” and “feeling a human touch.”
• Temporarily putting aside personal reluctance to handle phone calls, proactively picking up the phone to contact the customer, prioritising the appeasement of their emotions, and subsequently following up with a written record.
• Conclusion: Here, we respect individuality; however, in critical moments, the customer’s peace of mind takes precedence over your personal “communication comfort zone.”

3. Our Commitment to Clarity

Because we do not intend to be an organisation where “just anyone can fit in”; rather, we choose a specific state of being:

• Able to make decisions swiftly
• Able to engage in in-depth discussions rather than endlessly debating personal stances.
• Able to focus on achieving excellence rather than draining one another’s energy.

Maintaining such a team dynamic inevitably requires a certain degree of trade-offs.

4. For Those Considering Joining Us

If you prefer working with colleagues who share similar values and consistent judgment criteria—rather than highlighting differences—and if you believe the workplace is not a platform for promoting personal creeds or stances, but rather a place to fulfil assigned responsibilities and tasks, then you may find this environment to be an excellent fit.

Conversely, if you expect to continuously discuss politics, religion, or political correctness in the workplace, or if you prefer to prioritise personal creeds as the primary basis for professional judgment, you may find this work environment and style quite uncomfortable.

Our transparency isn’t about turning people away—it’s about making sure we’re the right employees to help each other succeed from day one.