Another gem from Expedia Recruiting.
So this friend of mine. Interviewed with xpdia. Didn't get a rejection. Didn't get an acceptance. Instead got "we are evaluating other candidates as well". You knew that from last post. Now they got another call. One more tech screen. The online assessment kind. Recruiter asks for 60 minutes slot. The confirmation email mention duration as 60 minutes. The test begins but won't tell you the total duration. It will only let you work on one problem at a time in a forced order. Whatever. The first problem is allotted 45 minutes. No biggie. 45 minutes later it moves to second problem. Allotted time 25 minutes. WTF?? Anyways it's not a biggie, went through. At the end of 25 minutes it jumped to third question. Time allotted for 3rd problem : 25 minutes. WHATTT!!! They sneaked in a 90 minute test after multiple confirmations and communications about it being a 60 minute test. My friend choose to not being pushed over in that manner and dropped an email to the recruiter about the incosistency in the communication. Recruiter blamed it all on the HM with the lamest excuse of all time "they did it to see how much you can do in that much time." A. Their assessment tool doesn't allow for that kind of evaluation. B. This was supposed to be a tech screen and not a performance screen. C. Also this attitude goes on to suggest that Expedia is okay hiring the best of the lot even if the best is not good enough for the job. They still don't get that the problem is lack of coherency & transparency in communication and not the duration of the test. I am recommending my friend to blacklist Expedia. What would you do?
Technical glitch , happens all the time in most of the languages. Someone hardcoded 90 mins or forgot a break statement , which is worse . Something like this. while(true) { // shoot test // missing break statement. // may trigger a blind poll. }
Must have been. As I said it's more about open communication and not playing blame game or passing the buck or pointing fingers... I think this indicates a cultural problem.
If your friend won't join, it's his loss. Expedia will easily get another engineer to join.
So you are suggesting it's okay to be treated worthless as long as it gets you a job where you might get arm twisted into getting shat upon every day. I somehow don't think that missing out on such a job is any kind of loss.
Unfortunately there not much you can do unless you create your own startup. People are slaves to corporate America.
Your friend should count his/her blessings and chalk it up to luck. GTFO and go somewhere they actually care about the employees.
So your friend can't work in a situation where everything isn't perfectly timed, sounds like we don't need them.
So you are comfortable with working for 40 hrs a week but your hours aren't perfectly timed so your paycheck is only for 20 hours. Please come work for me. I can pay you in 3 fucks a month for 40 hours of working a week... Just fucking read the content instead of making assumptions before you open your pie hole.... Now i am thinking it is not a single recruiter but cultural issue with Expedia. Nobody pays attention and every one s busy blowing their nose in each other's face like a trumpet .
This is more than likely some idiot Expedia director or exec that drinks the Okerstrom koolaid. Seriously, ignore it. Like the other Expedia person said, GTFO and count your blessings. This place is a serious shit show. I am headed to Amazon in 3 weeks myself.
I wouldn’t say this is a common situation, but recruiting here does suck ass, just like the tech. BUT I wouldn’t blacklist Expedia if your friend has a tough time finding a job ;) it’s one of the easier companies to get into.
It is indeed. But only if recruiters are doing their jobs... 😃😃
Dont join expedia its a shit hole
It indeed is... they didn't.... Much happy somewhere else
I wouldn’t join now anyway. I will say, we had a position open recently where 3 people came on site. They couldn’t all come the same day so one was several days before the rest. That person was told we’re still interviewing other candidates because we were. Had to wait for all to come it. It wasn’t some open ended thing though.
IMO, unless exceptional conditions, people are usually ready to delay the interview as it gives them more time to prepare. Usually its the company who wants to be aggressive about timelines to interview. Again the ball remains in the company's court so as to not end up in such situation...
Expedia is attempting to overhaul the hiring process. I won’t be surprised if some recruiters haven’t caught up. b) everyone hires the best of the lot, up to a degree. Do you think other companies just sit on their ass and wait for that perfect candidate for years while work gets piled up? You hire the best candidate you think can do the job. Quite possible that your friend did OK for that particular position but they were looking to see if any other candidate could do better. Leave feedback about the hiring process-you can find people responsible for hiring strategy via linkedin
Thank you, i will definitely let them know to post their feedback. But i disagree that companies hire the best of the available lot. There is a base hiring bar and if you raise that bar you get in. That's how i have been recruiting, that's how Amazon has been recruiting. I would never imagine telling a candidate that "hey you raised the bar but i am going to keep looking for someone who can raise it further" that's one of the worst candidate experience. You can't have a moving target, because then soon even you wouldn't know what you are aiming for. If someone doesn't meet the bar, they don't. It is professional to let them know that they didn't meet the bar and they can retry after X months or years.
That differs greatly depending on generic hiring events vs. interviewing for a specific role. In the latter case what do you do when you have 3 candidates meeting your bar for the same position but 2 are far better than one of them ? Be it personality, drive, extra tech knowledge , whatever ? Do you cut the rest of the people lose the moment you find the first candidate that meets the bar without even interviewing them? No. You interview them all, find the ones that meet the bar, then, if it’s a specific position, you find the best candidate for that specific role. If it’s a generic hiring event they’ll all stay in the loop until you find a good team match, but there’s a chance some people will not.