Documented work progress, but lack of clarification prior to termination
Pros
Individual colleagues were helpful and answered technical questions. This allowed me to build an initial understanding of processes and systems and to prepare corresponding working documents.
Cons
I worked at SCIENION, a BICO company, for less than one month. At the beginning, I received an onboarding plan outlining the relevant systems to be trained on. Based on this training, I was then expected to work on my tasks. From my perspective, however, this onboarding was not carried out before I started working on those tasks. From the first day, expectations regarding timelines were communicated in a very direct and strongly delivery-focused manner, which I experienced as pressure during the onboarding phase. This was reinforced by frequent, unscheduled follow-ups on progress. In addition, roles and responsibilities in terms of expectation-setting were not always clearly defined, which made alignment more difficult. For my task in the area of software architecture, I had to gather a lot of information independently through existing documentation as well as conversations with colleagues. I would like to positively mention that individual colleagues were helpful and answered technical questions. This allowed me to build an initial understanding of processes and systems and to prepare corresponding working documents. Since, from my perspective, there were no sufficiently documented workflows for the relevant processes, I began to structure and document them as examples. In my view, this documentation was an important foundation for the architecture design, as it helped to better understand requirements, user interactions, and system behavior. Based on this, I developed initial drafts for the architecture. The handling of focused work was also challenging. In my role, it was necessary to work on complex architecture topics with concentration. Due to a health-related limitation, it was important for me to occasionally work in a lower-stimulus environment. When possible, I used a small conference room for this purpose, which had been agreed upon. I was not available for spontaneous conversations at all times, but I actively sought and attended scheduled meetings and technical exchanges with colleagues. This need was partly interpreted as withdrawal and later mentioned as a point of criticism, which I found difficult given that I was regularly in exchange and documented my work. The termination of the employment relationship after such a short time came as a surprise to me, especially because I had actively gathered information, asked follow-up questions, documented work progress, and prepared initial architecture drafts and working documents. From my perspective, there was no structured, two-sided discussion prior to the termination in which I could explain my perspective. Instead, points of criticism were communicated and the termination decision was then conveyed. I could not fully understand the reasons given for the termination in relation to my documented work progress and my communicated working conditions. Overall, I had the impression that my contributions were not sufficiently taken into account in the decision-making process. After the termination, I reached out to HR to provide additional context and clarification from my side. I did not receive further feedback.
