Crossover for Work reviews

When I took the job as a GTM at Crossover, I was led to believe that the company had set out to be a positive agent to make an impact on the lives of those abroad by giving them stable, white-collar jobs at a salary above market rate from their home countries. I immediately realized that Crossover was falsely advertised–that the ever-distant pursuit of continual increased performance returns came at the expense of people’s livelihood–both of those who I managed and my fellow Stanford hires. I really enjoyed working with these people, and I saw each of them as an important person rather than a performance number. Crossover guarantees no job security, and fosters no trust–the requirement for constant screenshot oversight ensures that culture from the onset. This oversight was carefully concealed in the marketing of Crossover to Stanford students, and I felt deceived once I learned about Worksmart and the nature of the company after starting. Specific feedback about Crossover: - I was hired to manage non-technical teams, and I was placed in charge of engineers. - Productivity does not always have to be beaten out of people with increased oversight. If you create a company culture where people want to do their best out of desire to see the company succeed, the job will still get done and real transparency can be established. - They need to re-evaluate the way they measure metrics. All teams cannot fit into a simple metric, and all teams do not necessarily need much rigid structure to succeed. - They disguise a complete disregard for industry experience and knowledge under the pretense of looking for people who are “young and hungry”. Hiring people who are “young and hungry” is important, but people with no experience or proper knowledge should not be running the organization. - It is not right or smart to encourage people to perform by threatening their job security. - There was a complete lack of structure in their "training", it was so disorganized because of a lack of time invested.