Reviews GOLDMAN SACHS INTERNATIONAL

It is interesting to note that, when it comes to education, West London University - Ealing based is ranked among the lowest in London, and its location favours rather sb working in local pharmaceuticals, West London suburbs than the city itself! Due to poor recognition, it is highly unlikely that any banking professional would choose to attwe're there, travelling and wasting (time is money!) good an hour and half one way! Even if they were to merge with City University, which has its own reputable MBA program called BAYES MBA, it would still not be considered a target school. While it may be slightly better in terms of label, the students from the lower-ranked West Uni would never be able to claim the City University BAYES badge.Their MBA program comes at a significantly higher cost, approximately 15k more. Therefore, if she claims to have completed the Bayes MBA program, it would be a clear falsehood.
Furthermore, neither West London University nor City University are members of the Russell Group, and according to most bulge brackets HR standards, they should be viewed with skepticism in terms of quality(in fact not recognized).
The fact that she encountered difficulties even with one of the easiest programs in London speaks volumes!
Now, turning to Sales and Trading S&T or Global Markets, the elite front office at Goldman Sachs, she would be considered an Executive Director, making her the weakest and least qualified recruit ever hired for this prestigious department. Although it may not be Investment Banking Division (IBD), it still falls within the front office and involves supporting and working alongside traders.

At Morgan Stanley, nobody would be willing to pay more than £60k for an middle office individual like her, as I have moved year ago by myself from there. Our HR has clearly overpaid her skills by let me guess 2x her salary, which is surreal, considering her weak on even GS back office background.We can only feel sorry anyone she manages there, would expect anything the worse from such a weak leadership.
To make matters even more absurd, HR could have easily found an internal candidate who would be paid less, offer better performance, and come with no risk at all, as an internal hire.
This situation is truly outrageous when you consider the amount of money was wasted on someone who is clearly is worse than the available internal candidates.
I wonder how such a poor decision was made or better who was advocating for her, as it is evident that she did not secure this role based on her skills alone!
In any case, thank you for sharing this information either way rest S&T lads will be so much delighted to know this!

(deleted by the administrator) It is important for you to grasp the fact that individuals who pose a threat to others will not be promoted or lately at least, especially in the case of non-technical personnel, who possess limited knowledge and excel solely in a specific process. These individuals staunchly defend their current roles and would rather hinder your progress than allow you to be promoted ahead of them. (deleted by the administrator), their leadership skills are remarkably feeble, and they do not deserve to be referred to as bankers. In my view, selecting the right team and managers is just as crucial as establishing a strong company culture. Contrary to the prevailing opinion at PR GS, it is entirely possible to find yourself trapped within a poorly managed and self-serving team, led by individuals who lack the qualifications of a competent master's degree holder. The person in question would never permit the recruitment of someone who poses a threat to their own position, someone who would expose their inadequacy. This behavior clearly contradicts the bank's culture, but it seems inconsequential to her, as she prefers to recruit individuals who are easily manipulated and controlled, rather than experts who could potentially challenge her. It is considered a safe option for her to have individuals who merely carry out their assigned tasks without posing a threat. Although I would like to assist you, I must stress the importance of exercising extreme caution regarding the department and the individuals with whom you collaborate.

For instance, in Warsaw, upon examining LinkedIn profiles, it becomes apparent that most individuals holding the title of Executive Director are, in reality, equivalent to London's Associate level. Therefore, one can only imagine the extent of corporate politics being played out. Those who joined the local bank at a time when the organizational structure was laughably low hold an advantage, and they will defend their positions relentlessly. In London, due to fierce competition and mounting pressure to deliver results, the environment is even more cutthroat than back office operations in Poland. I urge you to exercise great caution, as it is exceedingly easy to become trapped and develop a strong dislike for this job. This is precisely why many junior analysts leave the company after just two years, opting instead for opportunities in hedge funds or private equity.

Sound too much like a true.

Is there any feedback mechanism in place to address such concerns? Do you have any advice for someone considering joining this team or department? Because that company seemed interesting..

Do you mean, the people working there are just not qualified enough? I think that is one of the most important things when choosing any financial connected company :p

Grace.
Thing is that seniors may and will often skip verification their core skills like during assessments common for analysts, etc.
As long as HR seeks production, process people who don't need much industry knowledge, have generic, lower-skilled profiles, and recently are women(push to recruit more in S&T etc), they can get away with a lot.

They rely solely depend on skills and technical expertise but more rely on technical skills analysts, and subordinates, for example.This is the weakest and least respectful form of leadership, but unlike IB or even Research (both of which make extensive use of FCA), those supporting teams at Sales&Trading (with exceptions to traders themselves) are made up of relatively random people.As a result, such EDs may manage half-skilled employees, which is unheard of in high finance.

If you are a graduate, it may be still something for your (most aim in 2 years tops, before moving) but if you are a senior,VP, such teams controlled by unsecured persons are a black hole that may delay or destroy your career.

What do you believe such a weak ED will do if he or she is threatened or perceived as less valued due to the presence of more capable senior colleagues on the calls etc? That's why most of us would choose mentors having solid industry backgrounds and tech skills like CFA, or people who were raised within the bank by analysts rather than cases like that one.It is clear HR last year wanted as many women into S&T as possible but shocking how much they have lowered the threshold even female colleagues at the back office would be a better choice and less risky than this one, which has nothing to do with skills but politics.

You mentioned the potential risks for seniors and VPs in teams controlled by "unsecured persons." Can you elaborate on specific challenges or situations you've observed? Sorry for so many questions, but I would love to deeper understand whats going on

Only about 20% as I have read of employees at GS possess the most valuable FCA qualifications in this industry. Most front office departments, such as M&A and Research, require a profound understanding of technical aspects like LBO, modeling, DCF valuations, and other intricate financial concepts. Consequently, transitioning from the back office, as in this case from generic Ops-operations(places where even former military works at the bank) to these highly technical roles is exceedingly challenging. The scenario appears to be more favorable in Sales and Trading (S&T), where they are more open to candidates from non-target backgrounds.
However, what is particularly unusual in this case is the appointment of an individual completely outside the target demographic, lacking training in front office matters, and exhibiting weak communication skills as a leader. One cannot help but question the potential outcome. Can someone like this effectively lead with the depth of technical knowledge required, and mentor others, or will they find themselves overshadowed by analysts undergoing rigorous technical evaluations?

Through our collective experience, we have observed that such situations often lead to a downward spiral of delegation without comprehension, a lack of self-awareness regarding interactions with other departments(seeing the bigger picture), and defensive mechanisms own position, such as micromanagement or suppression of subordinates to compensate for competency gaps. Analysts and associates typically harbor disdain for VPs/EDs if they sense any weakness in them. In cases like this, the absence of a robust technical background is glaringly evident, possibly limiting Grace's expertise to operational knowledge alone. Her experience appears riddled with gaps and weaknesses, making it easy to undermine her authority. Belive me as this example such ED woudn't even pass the latest analysts' selection process and none of them took more likely a part in assessments.The only way GS or other banks recruit them is purely on muscle memory of certain processes and lack of willingness to train people.

Leaders with strong technical backgrounds seldom engage in corporate politics as they possess a profound understanding of the industry and business. On the other hand, those with MBAs or lacking essential qualifications (incidentally, MBAs are not universally recognized qualifications, with many London banks disregarding them) tend to resort to defensive tactics and bullying, or conversely, adopt a bland persona to mask their inadequacies. Insecure managers often fear recruiting individuals with superior skills, and in the eyes of many professionals, especially those of us who consider ourselves specialists, such managers are perceived more as administrators than equals professionals, a perception that can lead to internal rebellion or sooner departure irritated by coworkers.

I meant that everything depends on the people you are working with, and although Goldman Sachs (GS) culture is well known, it doesn't mean all VPs represent the same level. I can assure you that within her team, there are also very skilled, competent people, many of whom would feel frustrated and annoyed by HR policies bypassing them in promotion. This only highlights how HR experiments are detrimental to overall team performance. If not for the fact that those details have leaked, she would be able to hide this easily on LinkedIn, sharing as little as possible about her responsibilities. At work, she might delegate tasks she doesn't fully understand and people will be too frightened to challenge this.
On a separate note, it just shows how easy it is to obtain any MBA if she has failed all qualifications. What surprises me the most is the fact that HR went for it, despite having a target MBA list and far more qualified candidates in the pipeline, even internally, which should be their first choice. Many of them must have felt deceived by HR if they were recruited instead of someone less qualified like her, all in the name of meeting diversity targets. She definitely took a spot from someone more talented and skilled in this case, highlighting the presence of politics in the system. Trying to flag this to HR might result in being marked as a problem-maker. Not the first, nor the last time whistle-blowers were fired instead of addressing the problems. The best way to move on and change teams with far less drama or clock this mandatory 2years and change offices, as GS allows rotation internationally as well.