Goldman Sachs: How To Get ED Executive Director @Global Markets(Sales&Trade) front office?Total Non-Target Play HR D&I Game...It Worked (Real 2022case)...Hope Admin Will Show A Bit Unbiased Understanding Importance Of This Discussion.
The biggest Goldman Sachs problem is that there is no meritocracy. Having worked in IB for more than 16years, I've seen tremendous injustices in terms of promotions, pay, and culture.GS is now different HR tends to recruit mix of people, which we can divided into 2 categories:
- superbly educated and mediocre ones too (mostly with bought MBAs, not even target, expensive ones, as we are seeing many random, non-name candidates).Being superb, CFA , Phd technical is a deep liability because you're expected to stay quiet and just churn out work.
- Administrators, corp. gliders based on bosses liking than skills. Conversely, the people who are incapable of producing quality work are assigned "softer jobs" such as going to meetings, presenting to higher ups, and eventually managing others. Sooner or later all the "smart" people end up reporting to people who don't understand the business but are good at sucking up to their boss. Those mainly have MBAs, so they aren't experts at all from anything...if you think 1 yrs programme will make you a leader in banking you are irrational, especially without ground knowledge which only qualifications and even masters provides.
I don't have an axe to grind, and actually think this culture has helped my career. In fact it is a great place to learn and grow if you have luck to deal with 1st category! Provided exit opportunities (if you are not too old - age bias) Hedge Funds etc in my case. The common misconception is it is difficult not being sb protégé. Well, I was recruited by direct HR approach last year (typically for +VP grades)
However, I can call myself very lucky as HR on-board me although:
- I was disciplinary terminated by BofA in 15' focusing on the last employer instead, recommendation. Lucky this hasn't impacted my screening, most banks perform much detailed checks further in history!
- I'm 100% non-TARGET (Uni, MBAs, background etc)I have low (3.6/5.0)M.Sc. Marketing/Accounting of Eastern Europe non target even there, 2nd degree- but never finished back at home, started ACCA which failed after 1st exam, same goes to FCA etc. An obvious trick was do buy instead MBA(nb fails those!) the cheapest London's MBA(100% pass rates+ CMI incl. for free) nb cares, West London at the end my programme which I had to extended, luckly merged with City Uni - what confused HR as it is still same low quality with other slightly better label).
- CMI is the only "paper", I have not even being examinable as it was part of my generic MBA bought package and apparently I claim this as the only person at London office
Most banks won't even care about those, somehow GS/Morgan HR's need tick this off for any promotion, won't even consider it as any value as you can easily cheat and outsource most assignments to copywriters like most ppl did.
Professional qualification in other hand requires sacrifice doing everything all exams by yourself, what was/is challenge for expats not fluent in English. Have you wondered why some EDs having very weak education like me, barely know how to draft an emails and overall suck in communication (now you have an answer) not to mention being threaten by more skilled co-workers?
- I don't have Russel Group (UK)/Ivy business diploma – nothing further from this in fact, as I have graduated mediocre accounting major in one of Easter European uni, not even the most competitive major to start with, this doesn't make sense hearing about top schools requirements at all.
- My background by no means wasn't FO,as I came from generic op. Firmops,CA experience, never been involved in actually sells pitching, direct clients interaction, not like most transfers to FO coming neither Risk or Research, Finance nor Markets exp
- I'm not qualified – neither FCA, FRM, ACCA etc, in fact Analyst, Assoc. I supervise are 2x more technical superb than me, as far my +15 YOE middle/back office operational support goes.
I have started ACCA but failed at 1 exam, started FCA but failed, so MBA with impossible to fail(100% successful rate) at West London was my way around, especially as they merged it with City Uni at final study what confused HR even more and giving other label for quality same school instead.
- CHEAT TRICK there are MBAs and "MBAs"- I have completed the cheapest (budget limitation and language barrier) non-target (some called it Micky Mouse MBA) London's MBA as typical those throw in meaningless CMI paper incl in price, both nb really cares but HR needs to tick this off – costed +£16k, which was later luckily merged with City Uni.The main requirement was pass basic IELTS test(some might laugh)not like in professional MBA programmes (GMAT) not to mentioning LSE and rest Russel's Group requirements!
Most of my colleagues @GS have graduated LSE etc (for £110k-140£k eMBA)however due to language, communication I was also forced to use extensive help copywriters(fiverr, gumtee lots of them to choose from) to pass final result. One of advantages MBA over restrict self-study qualification as many people and alumni was doing the same, due to work commitments or just pure laziness etc. MBAs are more restrictive due to their costs not level, as you won't be banking expert after 1(18mths generic program), of course there are exemptions, not mine.
- My communication skills although average at the best, I have never studied English language as my 1st foreign language, nor eastern accent luckily hasn't impacted my chances. I know it is huge obstacle in other FS sectors at senior level.
- Finally if I were representing a different sex, probably not meeting diversity targets (GS it is no surprise aims to influx % women giving us a bit blind eye, I wouldn't stand a chance among male colleagues, with CFAs, LSEs etc)
Overall I'm so grateful and happy that I can lead own team and set own targets as well recruit people suitable for business and my management own personal goals.
Policy vs reality and discrimination (own interest above company's)
"The firm is committed to providing equal employment opportunity (EEO) to all qualified persons …including race, nationality, sex, gender, religion and age."
Well dead policy, the reality is other way round. So much depends on people. I'm keep telling friends that in this business critical thinking is disadvantageous, there is no space for too old, too experienced candidates as they tend to create leaderships challenges and raising uncomfortable questions about sense and ways of doing things. Craftsmanship speed, accuracy are the most important in this role alongside soft skills managed ( at the end not the most knowledgeable or skilled got promoted!).I personally tend to recruit only young candidates, who are willing to make effort, work long hours and do not challenge supervisors causing unnecessary fractions. Why I would recruit sb you can possess a threat to my role in first place!
Ethics& Integrity vs reality:
Neither GS nor my previous bank wouldn't probably mind if I will admit that I've spent few years clamming council social housing benefits as well, living with my further family in their council flat and still work as Director(savings '000 in the process, just using loopholes).I simply used an opportunity as I was learnt doing at work and play the game.
To summarize I'm not exactly a raw model for junior colleagues (sometimes) better qualified and technically skilled on the job than me, neither in terms of technicality nor especially ethics at all, but as they came to me and once you are in, who cares!
All of the above are true and rather simple to check, so I hope HR is taking notes.
In other words not only geniuses get ED roles but also like my case process masters as I was lucky to work on process in competitive bank they wanted. Now imagine to work in department like mine... where more senior, more technical collegues will be intensoinally blocked by weak leaders like EDs who many time do not even understand what delegate below but at all cost will be defending and eliminating internal competition to them...cherry picking tasks, highly visible as useful for their fake image build up above.
Why are there so many examples when technically brilliant people are prevented by extremely incompetent para leaders, most of whom have purchased the simplest MBA available, not real bankers but administrators, whom anyone can become if given the opportunity to master the process?
Only reason why HR so much lowered a threshold for me and fact I'm a women (as Goldman after lawsuit and paying $215m compensation tries so much to get more women into front office roles)
#GoldmanSachs #salesandtrading #globalmarkets #IBD #MorganStanley #JPMorgan #Citi #Evercore #blackrock #point72
Why are you putting hashtags, this isn’t Twitter.
Those are my early beginnings, still can't even find "edit" anywhere?!
A lot of text here. Was the point to say you're mediocre but have a sick title?
Edit: Nvm I saw the summary post at the bottom after I posted.
True, but image how the folks in the middle and back office at GS must feel when their own HR prioritised D&I above competencies, neglecting the safest and least risky truth of promoting sb within and as we know there are hundreds way better than such mediocre professional like her.
Nobody can deny that if they wanted women candidate, they could have brought in someone twice as qualified from the London office rather than a no-name candidate who turned out to be a terrible failure. She must have very strong inside connection, because such a terrible background would not guarantee her even common VP in India centre, let alone front office ED in 2nd most competitive office after HQ in NY.
I feel sorry for analysts, associates, as well as the VPs she manages there, not having even basic technical nor proper management backgrounds, with poor communication (sell side!) as we can read from her meaningless MBA, everyone can really do. This only shows to illustrate how simple it is to enter into S&T with connections rather than competence in contrast to such IBD.
If the objective of HR was to undermine and tarnish the reputation of Global Markets, then their approach appears to be on the right track. Short-sighted thinking of this nature invariably has adverse consequences. Other major firms like JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley, who have qualified generalist Executive Directors in contrast to genuine bankers and leaders, may be silently observing with satisfaction. Weak leaders (EDs) are known to obstruct the progress of potential internal competitors within their teams, preventing technically adept colleagues from being promoted and leading junior staff into a professional dead-end. It seems that HR's reasons for selecting such individuals remain mysterious, as they steadfastly defend their own positions, behaving more like bosses than true leaders committed to developing their teams.
From own personal experience, I find it unsurprising that this individual may be biased against senior candidates, likely to shield her own inadequacies when confronted by more experienced, critical thinking colleagues. It would not be difficult for a technically proficient individual to challenge her at any point, considering her lack of understanding of more intricate matters. We can assume that her managerial approach appears to revolve around delegation, functioning as an administrator rather than an SME, and yet she still will be seeking undeserved credit for the work done by others. I can only expect that such person will be always playing bossy role, defending own position than seek to develop and take credit with others development too.
You are asking first year uni kids for advice on how to become an ED at GS
This example perfectly illustrates how HR stupid nominations of supervisors can be deeply flawed, even to the point of being pathological. Is it first case like this?
Not at all, nevertheless it is concerning to witness the promotion of very unqualified individuals based on connections rather than skills and knowledge, as this subject come up before.
When those kids probably are too naïve to spot a difference, this practice leads to frustration among more experienced Associates, VPs and technically advanced professionals, especially those FCA, which are a golden standards industry (not sh... MBAs like her). The presence of an ED with a weak background and communication skills, who relies on outsourcing school assignments, raises questions about how such an individual could have landed in a front-office position when she won't pass even series 7 exams by herself!
Such a weak "ED" will unquestionably undercut more capable and senior colleagues, such as VPs below her, by using strategies like cascading blame and selecting jobs that make her appear more competent. It's probable that she employs tactics of either presenting herself, playing being too nice or bullying others to cover up her incompetence, which is obvious when compared to the other EDs, even those who aren't even from the back office! She might be more suitable for a post in an Indian or Polish facility than in London, and particularly the front office, given her administrative profile.
If SB wants to learn and advance professionally, avoiding this department would be wise. This has to be one of the worst HR blunders in recent years, considering it was caught red-handed and a wonderful advertisement for GS front office expertise internally and, most importantly, customers.
But 1st year uni kids know, right?
It must be a harsh reality check for those kids, when the qualifications expected from recent graduates and analysts exceed those of an apparent Executive Director (ED) in many fields. It's worth noting that this ED has never successfully passed any assessment centres typical for analyst roles, having been recruited by Goldman HR from rather <Operations department> more likely because process (everyone can learn that!) experienced than overall skills.
Such OP department typically consists of individuals with diverse backgrounds, including military veterans, geography and art graduates, and the like – not the first place one would expect to find someone managing professionals with CFAs and PhDs in the front office!
Many of us are astonished at how someone with seemingly mediocre skills, lack of any qualifications, not only remains unchallenged by more proficient subordinates but also abuse own position to actively discriminates against more senior, skilled candidates. One possible explanation for this behaviour is the fear of being outperformed by more skilled colleagues, revealing their own lack of competence.
This situation illustrates how HR inadvertently perpetuates a culture of pathological (due to often lack of knowledge) delegation. When your supervisor, an ED/VP attains their position through connections, rather than merit, it may be advisable to consider seeking opportunities in a department that values skills and expertise more highly.
Is this a troll? Everyone will make ED at GS, its just a matter of time. Its just the equivalent of VP for non US folks there.
Allow me to clarify. In this instance, the role of ED represents a VP-2 echelon, responsible for the supervisory of a cohort encompassing group analysts and associates, even some VPs. It is not beyond the realm of conjecture that the credentials of those subordinate to her eclipse her own (she might be the most unqualified ED many of us ever heard of and this includes front-back office – delegating work she might not even fully understand to peers, characterized by heightened CV potency, superior technical acumen, and elite, selective in comparison to her education! She would never land ED at S&T with such mediocre CV, not to mention had a chance with candidates recruited traditional pipeline HR process as she doesn't represents Goldman quality at all.
We are, in essence, discussing not a mere shared service centre ED - supervisor of any graduates, but rather London's S&T prominent front office, which has presence in NY, London and a few selective places across the globe. This just shows how HR lowered threshold for her as she is literally no-name candidate which I bet will benefit from learning from subordinates than other way round. The thing is what those colleagues truly might think about somebody like her earning 2x better and not having any student loan to pay, nor any covered by themselves expensive and difficult qualifications. You can read some of this frustration in many pleases as people will know she got this job not because her skills...
I appreciate your concern and the insights you've shared regarding the situation at hand. It's disheartening to witness instances where favouritism and compromised ethical standards seem to influence hiring decisions. In any professional setting, the principles of meritocracy and fair competition should be upheld to ensure the best outcomes for the organization and its employees.
Regarding HR's approach, which appears to involve cutting corners and employing favouritism in a way that excludes others rather than promoting inclusivity in their D&I efforts:
It is indeed concerning when individuals are placed in positions of responsibility, such as in executive director roles where they manage teams with CFAs and top degrees, without possessing the necessary qualifications, experience, or skills required for those roles. It's challenging to regard her MBA as having substantial value. Effective management, particularly in critical areas like sales and trading that represent the firm externally, necessitates a solid foundation of knowledge and expertise. This extends to embodying a model of integrity and ethics, qualities that both this individual and her qualifications appear to lack.
The implications of such favouritism and corner-cutting practices in screening executive director candidates could potentially lead to legal repercussions, thus tarnishing the organization's reputation. It's imperative for the HR department to consider the long-term consequences and to uphold transparency and integrity in their processes, especially considering that most colleagues are likely aware of her qualifications by now. Many would question HR's decision-making process.
Regarding Team Culture:
Additionally, fostering an environment where all employees can thrive based on competence and contributions, regardless of their background, is of vital importance. Treating all candidates fairly and evaluating them solely on their abilities can lead to a more dynamic and successful workplace.
Suggested Steps for Escalation:
While it's not within my purview to provide specific recommendations for action, I do understand the inclination to voice concerns through appropriate channels. If you believe that such practices undermine the organization's values and integrity, many of us who have experienced similar situations may suggest flagging this matter to the FCA first and then to HR. This approach could prevent attempts to conceal the issue and could clearly demonstrate the missteps and corner-cutting. There is a long bench of internal VPs colleagues, many times more qualified and skilled than this favoured woman – individuals who actually uphold ethics and stand for something. This includes a large pool of female colleagues. If HR is so focused on increasing the number of women by lowering the threshold for S&T and front office positions, it raises concerns.
There is no scenario in which recruiting her would lead to positive outcomes. Too many colleagues are furious about these unethical HR practices and the tendency to turn a blind eye, choosing only connected with some body at top individuals.
In conclusion, an organization's success is inherently linked to its commitment to upholding ethical standards, cultivating a diverse and inclusive environment, and ensuring that qualified individuals receive the opportunities they rightfully deserve. Thank you for sharing your perspective on this matter.
To sum up:
HR hired a knockoff ED and allowed her to manage high quality associates and VPs despite the fact that her only education is the easiest to get MBA, the cheapest to buy in London in fact (no GMAT even required, just basic English as the programme is designed for non-financial industries for low-income foreigners if you google it)and she even couldn't do it on her own?
What does this say about S&T's (GBM) recruitment transprancy process, when so high requirements are demanded from analysts/associates (not connected) are confronted with basics from EDs supervising those top quality human resouces? The manager who contribute little to your growth and instead take your work credit and learn significantly from much more capable subordinates. However, she could obstruct your progress and jeopardize your career should she perceive a highly competent Associates or VPs working under her as a direct threat.
This should serve as a wake-up call to the many young and naive analysts trying to break into the industry since they can easily find themselves in a black hole, even in GS's the front office.
A close friend of mine, aged 30, secured a position as a VP at Goldman Sachs in London in 2022, a year that saw an intensified focus by HR on diversifying the candidate pool, particularly lowering levels (in contrast to men) with regards to female candidates. When assessing this situation in contrast to the mentioned individual, it becomes apparent my colleague possesses far much superb 2 noteworthy CFA and ACCA financial qualifications (with the capacity to seamlessly undertake such as described MBA if only it was advantageous, in most banks cases it isn't and it is waste of money, although MBA is nowhere equal or as difficult as qualifications), in addition to her background at a distinguished MBB strategic consulting firm. However such talented and more qualified professional distinct from this shameful "ED" as she her placement was in back office, far less paid than front office and S&T, which as you might think suppose to have even higher standards. Moreover she exhibits superior aptitude compared to the mentioned case but also boasts a more comprehensive educational background. She also tap into HR's Diversity & Inclusion criteria, as she identifies as a Black young professional. Her skill set, versatility, and unwavering commitment to excellence set her apart from the referenced case ,so they are not even comparable in professional levels.
The approach taken by HR in endorsing this situation is shocking example of incompetence or to name this discrimination. While both individuals being discussed are women, a pivotal distinction arises from the significant divergence in their professional expertise and qualifications. One of them holds an expert rank, substantiated by her qualifications, while the recruitment process for the other appears to have been influenced by personal shady connections, potentially violating established ethical norms within our industry. This inconsistency in the review and selection process deserves to be addressed and evaluated in order to maintain fairness and meritocracy in all appointments after all, GBM's HR and the entire S&T reputation are at stake.
I should be saying this at laud, but we have to make a comedy out of it , what else we can do?!
Apparently, the population of Lady Boys in London may be due to such HR preferences on the rise like in Thailand, if not skills or qualifications appear to guarantee you even an ED (people management post) at Goldman's front office.
We live in insane times, where in order to recognise one group (women), HR just must discriminates everyone else, most notably I bet white heterosexual males.
Surprisingly, we males will soon be included in ZOO as a distinct spice.
This is insane!
One thing is certain: she did get this job because a brain...
I have completed my CASS MBA, which, as far as I know, is the only MBA program City University offers.It is currently being renamed as BAYES Business School.
There is no way City Uni would ever agree to merge with an even lower-tier institution like UWL. When comparing the two, the price difference is 30-40k! BAYES is considered middle-tier, and some argue it's not precisely within the Russell Group.If she is using their branded name, she is committing fraud. Since she claims not to be recognizable across London, the CMI accreditation, which is granted by default to everyone in low-tier MBAs without even an exam, proves that she has completed UWL, not BAYES! Reading about such an unethical person, abusing her role for her own private gain or employing discriminatory tactics against candidates, makes me sick.
How HR ended up hiring her from such a large pool of candidates is a mystery to me.
She must be the most unethical and unqualified Executive Director ever recruited, not just for the front desk but for the entire 25 Shoe Lane office! Many of us know lots of associates, including females, who are more deserving of this role than she is, given unmatched skills and backgrounds not internal connections!
What a shambles!
My friend who actually knows her claims she was merely an associate for more than +8years BoAf and MS as per her older profile, yet if you believe her Linkedin, she has a decade of Management Director's experience....it just makes me question, what else she made up? Integrity and ethics are not characteristics she possesses for sure.
Let's hope someone from HR will lose their job over this as well. I wouldn't hesitate to report this, not in the UK, but to file a case in the US.
We are all know of how HR there deals with such scams. Here in the UK, they may attempt to conceal this issue, as it highlights HR's incompetence and discriminatory tactics.
It's bewildering to think that someone so unqualified like her, is leading individuals who have so much the firm to offer!
In the GS, it often seems to be more about who you know rather than what you know.
One we can confidently assume that the individual in question, who purports herself to be a "CMI" holder, a credential that lacks legitimate accreditation and is gratuitously added for free to basic MBAs like the one she obtained from the University of West London, wouldn't be able to pass even entry "Analysts" assessments at Goldman Sachs.
It is even more far-fetched that she holds any tangible skills to allow her effectively managing a team of professionals, more advanced than she is in every aspect of this Executive Director role position.
Her case serves as a stark illustration of the undeniable pathology that HR decisions can inflict on previously considered as 2nd (Sales & Trading) the best after elite IBD department to move, in terms of career and remuneration ... not anymore!
The presence of an individual of her "caliber" in a ED position entailing the management of personnel possessing superior skills, greater ambition, and enhanced capabilities raises questions that defy logical explanation.
Her skills gaps extend well beyond basic communication proficiency and extend to a notable absence of tangible skills or qualifications. It is reasonable to assert that, even with generic MBA, her lack of qualifications, poor skills would not suffice to secure a managerial position within a fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) firm, let alone a role within the esteemed front office of Goldman Sachs.
She isn't for sure any professional knowledge or ethical role model follow-up!
Can only imagine how her colleagues must have felt knowing who is managing them, something not imaginable in other high finance roles to lead without solid knowledge just based on delegation and reliance on superb skills of your junior (only by title, grade) colleagues.
It definitely sounds like a BLACK HOLE team to avoid, she may not provide substantial support for your early career, but her discriminative actions can indicates she can jeopardize it easily. This becomes evident in her apparent bias against more experienced professionals.
I see this a bit different, I can be certain that my D&I identity prevents me from moving up in my position or earning a good salary. I'm overworked and grossly underpaid. My peers and those who placed far lower and behind me do not even come close to matching my degree, years of experience, or achievement as it is not what you know but who you know matters the most.
I'm sick to my stomach at how HR treats everyone, including own staff.
They chose sb in this way out of hundreds of other competent candidates, including internal ones.
That is self-explanatory. Finding the best applicant was not their primary focus from the start.
With regard to abilities, it is more simpler for a woman to break into S&T; Morgan Stanley is also doing all in their power to promote women, lowering their traditional expectation from man into sales. Clearly, in this case, connections have proven to be far more significant than real abilities or qualities. If you are a naive graduate, you could be happy to join such a team, but it will be short-sighted for your career in the long term. Manage risks cautiously, get true mentor (sb who walked all this way, instead benefiting such cheats) develop internal network, and eschew those who are solely there, because who they know or even sleeping with.
This may seem counterintuitive to some, but do not listen to your ego and try to bring down such a badly qualified ED, Manager.If HR made such a mistake it is apparent she/he is somehow connected, and sb is on her/his side because otherwise, an applicant like this would lose without even internal colleagues. While most people would prefer to see her fail, it makes more sense to connect with her and use that opportunity as leverage to transfer from this department. Because of her biases, a weak leader might still delay her career or even affect your own performance assessments, so don't make her appear terrible. Play a long game and look for chances to find the way out,somewhere you can actually learn something from your ED.
GS picked only 1% out of 280k applicants. It's crazy, especially when you consider this subpar ED. Honestly, in most banks, this person wouldn't even qualify as a regular admin (not even financial) manager. They're just an HR admin compared to the highly qualified, skilled, and tested professionals out there.
And now, they're mentoring? It's mind-boggling and honestly, pretty messed up to end up in such a team.
The Sales-side differs significantly from the Buy-side, and penetrating this domain is notably more accessible, even for individuals originating from the back office. It may surprise you that in the Controllers, risks etc back offices are nearly required 2x higher qualification than operation random people, we can teach everyone smart enough, who are not traditionally aligned with high finance, such as those with military backgrounds or majors unrelated to finance, as favored by HR under the guise of "diversity."
You more likely reference to the ECM team, suggests that even HR exercises discernment, avoiding the placement of individuals with inadequate communication skills in client-facing ED roles. Such positions entail passing rigorous 7x-series exams, a stark contrast to the option of outsourcing the process with a Bs MBA everyone can buy those days. Most less skilled colleagues after failing with FCA and other qualifications choose to buy an MBA as those days you can literally do them without even having basic language skills in London by using like her 3rd parties or simply cheating most of the way.I have never seen MBA even close in level or selection and quality to as example FCA, as most Unies earn lots of money from them and can't afford to lose rich but not too bright candidates...sad true as most banks and their HRs in contrast to American consider MBA as personal development mostly bachelors or non-finance professionals than additional values like FCA for the bank.
Despite this, it remains evident that numerous more qualified candidates, both internal and external, were overlooked. This reflects a bias within GBM HR, where a candidate relying on a mere bs MBA would struggle to stand out in a conventional selection process against genuinely qualified competitors, which holds true in London's financial landscape.
The attempt to mask inadequacies on LinkedIn by strategically "collapsing" previous roles—a tactic honed over years as an associate, now masquerading as a director with the same YOE —is commonplace, especially among ppl trying to fit in or hide their past. This individual may adopt either a bullying or excessively amiable persona, common methods to disguise competency gaps, although such behavior is not tolerated at GS. Consequently, this person may appear affable while undermining more knowledgeable candidates, posing a threat to those around her.
The stark reality is that she obtained this position not based on skills but likely due to HR's need to fulfill KPIs (2022 is a year seeing lots of women pressed to front office roles with many not even meeting basic thresholds for men) or through connections, bypassing the evaluation, assessments of her actual capabilities, something analyst know very well!
For those questioning the competence of certain EDs and VPs, the answer often lies in internal politics, where individuals with technical expertise and qualifications are sidelined in favor of people like this case. Those who are truly skilled can readily identify these impostors, strategically placed for reasons by HR other than their ability to comprehend and answer even basic questions, relying heavily on delegating tasks to associates. As far it is true that the higher up you are the less you do management it is instantly recognized by the team that you lack basic skills and do not much even lower peers.
Such hire has significantly impacted the team dynamics, leaving many more technically skilled team members frustrated. There is a prevailing sentiment that HR is promoting individuals who are ill-suited for managing human resources, especially in sales roles. This situation is causing discontent among team members who are questioning the reasons of such decisions, as it seems to undermine the effectiveness and cohesion of the team.In response to this HR pathology, a considerable number of team members are now contemplating voting with their feet.
Indeed, a significant number of such team members are more likely to actively seek opportunities to transition to teams that offer genuine professional growth and proper mentoring. The dissatisfaction stemming from HR decisions serves as a catalyst for a collective reassessment of individual career paths within the organization. It's essential to be cautious in expressing preferences, as not all front-office teams are on par with each other as this example shows. Making a hasty decision to join a particular team could potentially impact one's future career trajectory, emphasizing the importance of thoughtful consideration before making any moves and validating who is actually managing it.
It's evident that there are many high-performing teams within the GC front office, teams where you can learn skills for life! However, for reasons that are apparent, I would prefer to stay clear of this particular team.
What do you anticipate, my friend?
The conventional path for many individuals involves vying for the elusive 1% placement, wherein their potential supervisors, EDs may not have themselves qualified through the same rigorous process.
A few years ago, securing a position at prestigious firms such as GS and JP in London was comparatively straightforward. In the present landscape, however, one may find themselves compelled to make unconventional concessions, as evidenced by a candidate who assuredly did not secure this role based on merit alone. Perhaps she negotiated with a different kind of currency ;) one not often discussed openly. It's worth noting that Goldman Sachs, has its share of internal challenges. What sets GS apart is the culture of discretion among employees. Speaking out may be perceived as working against one's own interests, including the option of reporting concerns to Human Resources, which will probably penalize you instead.
The most unfair aspect is that these cheaters prevent more skilled and talented individuals from securing a handful of these positions, as they are undoubtedly the least suited for people management.
If she has failed in all qualifications and resorted to obtaining a questionable value (if any) MBA that everyone, could acquire these days, it is evident that she struggled with even such basic task, having to enlist 3rd parties to complete it on her behalf. Don't be surprised if people will be speculating that she landed this role through means other than "professional experience" or "professional relationships" within sb higher up in the bank. This is not the first time, and it certainly won't be the last, especially in S&T way go get in.
Just 4weeks ago, a MD in NY was accused of sexual harassment reported by New York Post.HR double standards that's all.
You are aware that the majority of those here are just kids, who will realize sooner rather than later, and that just hard work frequently converts them into great facilitators, allowing others even above half their qualifications, to claim their accomplishments.
Finding a proper mentor, someone with integrity and an understanding of all ropes, is possibly the most important quest for them; otherwise, they will wind up in teams like the one described above hating every day of their existence or counting days to move into hedge funds or changing teams.
Why HR hasn't disciplined her for violating the code of conduct is self-explanatory, especially given the seemingly radical actions taken, such as the dismissal of the MD for using non-business related things comms like WhatsApp or the termination of numerous others for comparatively minor transgressions.
When it comes to pursuing an MBA, the emphasis is primarily on private personal development, and it is worth noting that most banks won't even endorse such endeavors not even talking about participation in their costs.
The most concerning aspect is her contravention of more than half of GS's business principles while consistently avoiding accountability.
A typical employee would incur consequences for significantly lesser infractions.
"Our assets encompass our personnel, capital, and reputation. If any of these are compromised, the restoration of the latter poses the greatest challenge. We are dedicated to complete compliance with both the letter and spirit of the laws, regulations, and ethical principles guiding our operations. The sustainability of our ongoing success hinges on unwavering adherence to this standard."
Integrity and honesty lie at the core of our business. We expect our personnel to uphold high ethical standards in all their endeavors, both within the firm and in their personal lives.
In essence, for those not connected, strict adherence to these rules is imperative, given the delicate balance between customer satisfaction and regulatory compliance, one of the industry's most challenging aspects. The need to achieve both is theoretically paramount, yet recent events, such as the scandal at the old London HQ of S&T a few years ago, underscore the difficulty in maintaining this balance.
Google it >Goldman Sachs 'muppet' trader says unsophisticated clients targeted > under former CEO Lloyd Blankfein
What you do not understand is that routes with thousands of applications, races for the best qualifications, etc are for people lacking connections.
Thank you for bringing this topic to light, as it is often not openly discussed and everyone knows the bank policy. Our MD expressed reservations about this initiative off the record, characterizing it as "another HR experiment aimed at meeting so called diversity targets rather than focusing on qualifications." Many individuals within our community are frustrated as they believe this approach jeopardizes the collective reputation of our department.
With bonuses season, Associates to VP/ED even from back office now find themselves comparing their compensation to S&T, realizing that the perceived elite status may not be as distinct if HR recruits none names like above.
This emphasizes concerns many about the potential impact of HR irrational decisions on our collective team performance and reputation. It underscores the significance of organizational politics, revealing instances where individuals can get away without merit, raising questions about the validity of them earning prestigious distinctions like the GS batch.Let's hope she won't last too long once everyone can so easy identify her.
CEO David Solomon emphasized during the orientation for over 600+ newly promoted MDs (class 2023) this week that "MDs bear the responsibility of imparting our core values and culture to their respective teams".
Does this expectation similarly extend to lower-ranking VPs/EDs, as the above examples actually demonstrate totally the opposite?
It will indeed be intriguing to see how their HR addresses this, particularly considering that many of us, including Goldman's direct competitors like ourselves, have received evidence supporting this. It's evident that they may have onboarded sb without proper screening, recruited through connections rather than skills assessment, being one of the most unqualified for the job. If our colleagues in the US have heard about it, it's likely that the entire industry is aware of this.
I'm not one of those individuals from a so-called Greek life background, perceived as more privileged than skilled, but allowed to break into the IB mostly based on connections, cocky, and feeling superior to others.
Nothing could be further from the truth, as many of us are still decent people who would always find it troubling to know they should never have been here in the first place if not for a sugar daddy or family connections, etc. We have no respect for those privileged types at all. Don't worry; she won't have an easy life now for sure, being exposed when everyone knows her background
There is an old sentence: "Once a cheater is always a cheater!"
Qui voluptas delectus dolor dolor ratione ullam laborum et. Doloribus id expedita dolorum. Molestias voluptatem ut voluptatibus laudantium repellat eos veritatis. Ipsam suscipit officiis nobis omnis. Id iste fuga voluptas exercitationem distinctio repudiandae blanditiis.
Dignissimos laboriosam recusandae cumque. Dolor culpa voluptas repudiandae. Recusandae et voluptatem dicta similique. Aliquid porro eum aut.
Quaerat quo fugit fugiat ipsam aut. Eos similique velit occaecati molestiae. Magnam et et veritatis nam.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Beatae necessitatibus sed aut et tempore rerum. Aspernatur dicta dolores sed aspernatur. Rerum recusandae porro et vitae dicta adipisci numquam eveniet.
Et qui earum a maiores. Est at similique est enim est qui occaecati qui. Et aliquam rerum exercitationem magni et. Cumque tempora deleniti fugiat ut doloribus quasi eos. Et commodi sequi corrupti reprehenderit ut facilis. Vel debitis cum libero consequuntur id. Et vel ut qui sit fugit voluptas nam.
Repellat minima ullam et accusamus. Corporis similique et inventore ea ab. Optio voluptatem est provident molestias.
Beatae quia delectus sunt voluptas officia ab sed. Repellendus laboriosam at voluptas laborum sequi eligendi ratione inventore. Assumenda incidunt quo ab quia nesciunt dolore quam. Porro non dolorum accusantium et qui. Aut id non maiores rerum fuga sunt. Non a praesentium voluptatem hic necessitatibus alias omnis.