3 ms·

I'm in part going off comments made by employees about her attitude. I mean, I have little idea. I'm not claiming that the negative take is the right one, only

I'm in part going off comments made by employees about her attitude. I mean, I have little idea. I'm not claiming that the negative take is the right one, only that there is some oversight in the author here leading to this article. I'm very sceptical about an HR on-boarding process, so-described, being a redflag for anyone. As she claims, it's an irrelevant/missable process anyway. The idea its some lens into the company, on this occasion, doesnt stack up. However you interpret the motivation for writing, I dont buy the "redflag" one.

brailsafe 6y ago
In some sense I agree with you, but on the other hand I do feel like these are implied caveats. It's perhaps unwise to look too far into an onboarding process as a serious mark against a company. Even companies that invest a lot in this will mess it up. I think it's implied that she didn't do this, simply by consequence of her pushing forward anyway, and her also qualifying it at the end with "red or pink flag". My sense is that this was something that subsequently stuck out to her, and maybe became a more significant pattern throughout her year at the company. It's what's not said that sort of brings a bit more significance to these particular things, because why else would these things stick out upon reflection? I've had worse onboarding experiences, that upon getting fired, I looked back on and thought "Wow, maybe next time I'm handed a HP laptop and told that Macs are only for designers, I'll just walk out", because they were significant of events that would later cause me undue turmoil and stress that affected my performance.