zlacker

>>lostms+(OP)
This was definitely not a great experience, but my hunch is what happened is some higher ups decided no, they don't need to hire you, the original team tells recruiting to notify you, recruiting drops the ball somehow, team goes on with their lives believing that you were told they were no longer interested, and everyone (except you, since you never got notified) believed the whole thing was resolved.

The original people (not recruiters) who reached out to you should've connected after the decision was made. They probably figured the recruiters would do their dirty work, so no need to engage.

Full disclosure: I worked at Microsoft for over a decade, so I know how slow and lumbering it can be. I bet some emails were missed and people didn't follow up because "they had a lot of other things they were tracking".

>>allenu+2o
It's a bit lame to say recruiting must have dropped the ball. If you've engaged with someone, you're inspired by their technology, etc., etc. then handing them over to recruiting for a rejection is pretty weak.

>>underw+Xt
I totally agree.

It's a totally different world inside a huge company like Microsoft, though. It's massive and its own little world. After working inside for a few years, you start thinking that it's "normal". You see projects start up and get shut down, you see people trying to get into the company, you see people trying to transfer to other teams within the company, you see people trying to leave the company, you see people in the same team for a decade or more, etc. Because of the scale of things, you sort of become numb to a lot of things you see, so I sort of "understand" if somebody just figured recruiting would sort out that someone wasn't the right "fit" for the company.

I don't think this kind of behavior is necessarily the right one, but it's the outcome of a large behemoth made up tens of thousands of people.