Pros
The company provided full compensation.
Cons
There were repeated terminations in the QA role within a short period of time. One QA engineer worked for approximately two months and was terminated, followed by another who worked for less than one month. Both were experienced specialists. This raises concerns about onboarding quality and ramp-up expectations. Micromanagement was present in daily work, including attention to minor communication details. Despite starting work at 8 a.m., communication continued until around 10 p.m., effectively extending the workday to approximately 14 hours until I explicitly stated that I was no longer available. Team collaboration was inconsistent. Asking for help was initially encouraged, but in practice, it was sometimes treated as slowing down the process. Communication practices could be improved. There was limited effort to fully understand situations before making termination decisions, and opportunities for open discussion were restricted. During testing, inconsistencies in functionality were identified compared to the documented behavior. It was acknowledged that some features did not fully match the original specifications. Situations like this should be treated as valuable QA input and an opportunity to improve the product, but it has been treated like underperformance. There was an expectation during hiring that feedback would be clearly documented and followed by a structured improvement process. This was not consistently implemented in practice. Company values such as empathy, openness, and encouraging employees to speak up and speak out are actively communicated. However, these principles were not consistently reflected in practice during critical situations. Overall, this experience highlights issues with onboarding, communication, and feedback processes.