Workplace reviews and discussion: 無限創意科技工程有限公司

The environment was clean and tidy, the staff conducting the interview that day were polite, and they provided a cup of water.

Overall, this interview experience was disappointing. The following are aspects of the process that I found unreasonable or disrespectful to interviewees after participating in it, provided for friends who are preparing to submit their résumés to this company as a reference:

1. Overly cumbersome online assessments unrelated to the position

- Before the interview, HR required me to complete a comprehensive aptitude test covering “English, verbal comprehension, numerical concepts, spatial concepts, perceptual speed, logical reasoning, and memory.” The format was similar to a combination of civil service entrance exams, psychological assessments, and college entrance exam questions.

- In addition, I had to complete a Codility programming algorithm challenge with an English-language interface. This was very unfriendly to non-native speakers or those unable to adapt to an English environment in a short time. These assessments had relatively little connection to the actual position applied for, and the company did not explain how the results would be incorporated into the hiring evaluation, which easily creates unnecessary psychological pressure and a sense of frustration.

2. Lack of confidence in its own assessment tools, requiring repeated problem-solving

- Even after answering perfectly and providing detailed comments, I was still required to solve the problems again on paper onsite, demonstrating the company’s lack of trust in its own tools and in applicants’ abilities.

3. No computer equipment provided onsite, yet handwritten programming was required

- Although I was applying for a software engineer position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any other equipment and required me to write algorithms and system logic by hand on paper. This was extremely disrespectful to an engineering role.

4. The job functions and position scope were not clearly explained

- The job description did not clearly state that “full-stack capabilities” were required. It was only mentioned in the later stages of the interview that the candidate had to be able to write frontend code, resulting in a major gap between the expectations of the role and the actual requirements.

5. An additional practical assignment was added after the interview without reasonable guidelines or safeguards

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly required the interviewee to complete an additional technical assignment, such as a full-stack back-office system. However, the assignment completely lacked clear specifications regarding the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic. The applicant was left to determine the entire development direction and all details independently.

- This not only created psychological pressure and a time burden, but also reflected the company’s arbitrary and inconsistent approach to evaluating applicants’ technical abilities, raising doubts about whether it lacks an effective talent assessment system.

- Even more regrettably, the assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of an offer, or concrete process arrangements after completion. The company only stated that it would “observe the completion time and approach,” effectively shifting all of the costs and risks of the applicant’s investment back onto the applicant. This was extremely unfriendly to job seekers with limited time who participated in good faith.

6. The applicant’s background was not clarified, yet a shift to a different function was subsequently required

- Although the company knew that the applicant had a backend background, it required the practical assignment to include UI screens and basic frontend design. The functional requirements were seriously inconsistent with the role applied for.

7. The overall interview design lacked structure and had a weak sense of institutionalization

- From the initial interview through the assignment arrangements and responses, there was no evidence of an organized process or consistent standards, raising doubts about whether the company has a sound internal talent recruitment system and organizational processes.

8. The promise to notify applicants of the outcome was not fulfilled

- The company initially promised that it would “notify applicants regardless of the outcome,” but in practice it provided no response whatsoever for more than two weeks, raising doubts about its basic workplace reliability and integrity.