Good company, needs to stop hiring former GE managers - Engineering Manager Halliburton Employee Review

3.0
Nov 8, 2015
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Good pay and benefits. Strong retirement (401K) contribution program and stock awards. Very challenging technical problems to solve. Good co-workers and supportive front line leaders. Invests good money into solving technical problems.

Cons

Middle management is poorly trained and practice micromanagement like it is the only way to go. Political infighting between silos (e.g. supply chain versus operations versus technology) is very unproductive. Most of the problems I have observed have originated with former GE managers who were hired in. I previously thought that GE should be looked at as a source of best management practice, but that is obviously not the case. These guys are shallow, unreasonable, very poorly trained in soft skills, political to the point of dysfunction. The good news is that this seems to be mainly focused in the Technology groups and not the rest of the organization - yet. So I would recommend working for Halliburton, but be prepared to deal with an overbearing middle management crew that tried to cover their own shortcomings by beating up on those beneath them.

Explore other reviews about Halliburton

5.0
Jun 29, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

The company has great benefits

Cons

The con would be you are constantly in inclement weather.

1.0
Jun 18, 2026
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

* Strong brand recognition and opportunity to work on large-scale marketing initiatives. * Exposure to technical subject matter and cross-functional collaboration. * Good place to learn how large enterprise organizations operate.

Cons

I joined in a hybrid role where flexibility was an important factor in accepting the position and making personal life decisions. Within about a year, the organization moved to a full return-to-office model. While companies can change workplace policies, the transition felt abrupt and inconsistent in practice. A recurring challenge was that expectations around in-office presence did not always appear to match day-to-day reality. Remote participation still occurred for meetings and operational needs, which created confusion around when flexibility was acceptable and when it was not. Within my department, I also experienced challenges around communication and collaboration. Feedback on projects sometimes arrived late or only after priorities had shifted, and in some cases work was reassigned or substantially changed without clear involvement from the original contributor. Public criticism of work product without prior coaching made it difficult to improve or feel ownership over deliverables. Leadership communication during organizational changes often felt more focused on compliance than employee concerns. Employees raising questions about work arrangements sometimes perceived limited space for open discussion. Over time, the combination of reduced flexibility, inconsistent application of expectations, and limited recognition of specialized contributions negatively affected morale and trust.

2
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All