Good company but South Texas is a terrible place to be a field engineer for Halliburton - Associate Technical Professional Halliburton Employee Review

2.0
Dec 6, 2012
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Halliburton has a good reputation, relatively stable job, pay is good compared to other industries, company is profitable

Cons

Nationally: Training is a shadow of its former self, pay is not competitive, opportunities to move out of the field are no in line to what is promised during recruitment. Any company that makes you sign a 2 year bonus-repayment contract is having serious retention problems for a reason South Texas: Office environment resembles daycare, expected to work excessive hours when not in the field (in addition to working in the field), constant lies and BS from local management. My advice - if you're a recent grad take any other job offer that comes your way

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