While I appreciate a lot the touch of sarcasm, it's worth noting that the IBD tends to have more transparent and less exposed approach compared to the kind of hypocrisy we encounter at S&T, especially in contrast to more technical high finance roles. In roles like these, either you know the ropes or you don't, and this becomes apparent rather quickly, even brutally. 

It's intriguing to observe that among all the front office divisions, Sales & Trading (S&T) often seems to feature some of the most "random" placed senior individuals just managing more skilled resourced, cultivating delegation without understanding pathology at its best.

One can't help but wonder why HR doesn't choose to promote someone more qualified, perhaps even a female in-house candidate (being risk averse, without drama like this) if they are prioritizing D&I (given the stronger grounds in risk management and related fields). It seems counterintuitive to promote someone external, random, who appears to rely on others to carry out the daily tasks.

One can't help but ponder what message GBM HR is trying to convey. It almost appears as if they are suggesting that within GBM, mediocrity is acceptable, and you can still rise through the ranks while delegating your work to others. Well done HR...

Despite lurking here, I've never left a comment, but HR's favouritism and poor hiring practises speak for itself.

This is how I, and likely many others already experience in the industry, view it. You have 2 choices:
- elevating this case to HR, and presumably the best route is US HR, rather than London's which is biased and part of this problem (more likely HR will do the damage control and sacrifice rough, weak ED for letting this go, no matter to who she relates too, who bring her in, the heat is too much to just ignore this)

- alternatively use this case to actually make a difference, as far as the candidate lied, presented herself as more senior, qualified etc or played dishonourable, unethical games, it is HR who should take main accountability!  If the GBM hiring process hadn't been tainted, dishonest, and biased against significantly more talented female applicants, such a situation would never have arisen. Her co-workers below her, must be contemplating this, knowing she is taking advantage of working with them, rather than it being the other way around.

This is particularly concerning when it relates to front office, as even HR wouldn't make the mistake of placing someone with limited English proficiency in a role involving external client interactions, so they might feel like serviced from our colleagues in India or Poland. Moreover, she wouldn't be able to pass mandatory 7 series of exams required to work with clients independently, especially if she resorted to cheating, even on the easiest MBA homework, that everyone is expected to pass not like CFA (barely 25-30%).In London as well in continental Europe where most have finance or accounting advanced degrees, her MBA is seen as inconsequential, and most banks, especially real executives, tend to disregard it either way.

#2 offers a more challenging yet greatly appreciated perspective that all of us would value. It's a viewpoint many of us often shy away from expressing. Historically, gaining entry into senior positions at GS depended heavily on connections, networks, and personal relationships, sometimes even entailing inappropriate associations. Consequently, it's inevitable that her colleagues will eventually become aware of her shortcomings, competency gaps, errors, and reversals in previous decisions. Currently, HR has a duty to uphold the appearance of recruiting authentic experts rather than individuals who leverage their positions for personal gain. If it were up to me and many of my colleagues, we would strongly recommend taking a proactive approach and challenging the HR process itself at the top, as they bear the primary responsibility for this situation.

We need to Mac address or IP ban this nut case and his 1000 alt accounts who keep spewing unintelligible nonsense.

I cannot understand a word of this.

This reddit migrant crisis is getting out of control.

David Solomon, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, is the same person who got rejected 3x times for not being "Goldman material." To be honest, his resume doesn't quite match up this grade.

He admits that Goldman Sachs received a whopping 260,000 applications from analysts this year,

but only recruited 1% of them, which amounts to 2600.

Now, imagine being one of those lucky applicants, to only to end up in a team led by a less-than-impressive Executive Director, who got the job because of connections. This ED has never really walked the talk, lacking the technical experience, to be a single op expert. It's no wonder that most people leave after just 2 years in such dead-end environment, collecting GS badge and networking for the future. Honestly, working at @M&A seems like no no-brainer option than enduring a lousy S&T experience like this one.

At least in M&A, there are endless opportunities and less of a feeling of being herded like a slave, micromanaged by someone who barely understands the technical aspects as above (feel sorry for whoever works under that person). When it comes to S&T, the recruitment process seems incredibly random, especially among senior staff in the front office. It's baffling how someone can transition from Operations to S&T, while others hit a wall because they lack the necessary technical expertise and manage far more skilled people without even having a proper financial MBA background. In the meantime, you can learn so much at M&A in more supportive environments like boutique shops and then transition into bigger firms like BB and PE later on without having great, knowledgeable mentors.

The path to the front office isn't exclusive to FCAs, PhDs, or individuals from target schools. There's always a %of individuals who secure roles, including ED and managerial positions, through connections rather than solely based on skills and achievements. This reality can be disheartening for those who have dedicated significant effort and sacrifice to reach such positions, only to observe others benefiting from pre-established networks and what can be perceived as unethical support.

I know personally a former MD at GS's FX desk who, despite challenges like moving from Eastern Europe lack of FCA etc, performed well for a decade in the role due to getting guidance and being under the wing of his mentor. It is not always what you know but who you know otherwise guy wouldn't stand a chance like the example above if not have powerful friends, shielding him and mentoring him. The path of target schools, ultra competitiveness is for us, who don't have those privileges of having the same connections, but in the end, it builds stronger and reliant professionals who can easily spot those who get there cutting corners above.

The landscape of the Investment Banking (IB) industry, particularly in London, has undergone significant transformations. Securing a role has become more attainable, with expectations for women nearly halved at the peak of 2022. This shift has propelled a considerable number of women into front-office positions. However, the unexpected consequence has been the substantial lowering of the threshold by Human Resources (HR).

To provide context, individuals in Controllers and Risk, notably those who are significantly younger and possess more robust qualifications, have emerged as fitting candidates for these roles. Merely accumulating eight years as an associate or obtaining a generic MBA does not confer subject matter expertise (SME). Such qualifications are readily available and do not necessarily validate one's proficiency. Even prestigious institutions like the London School of Economics (LSE) are offering expensive programs in regions with lower entry points, a trend driven by financial motives. This pursuit of monetary gains, unless considered a specialization in itself, raises questions about the legitimacy of such credentials.

In comparison, there are individuals who, by virtue of their age and qualifications, are more suitable for the roles in question, while presenting minimal internal mobility risks. The rationale behind HR's decision-making, whether influenced by competency or networking prowess, remains unclear.

Who told you that GS exclusively selects only the most qualified candidates? This is a topic that many of us hesitate to discuss, as individuals who enter through recommendations and connections do not always successfully navigate the standard Human Resources (HR) processes, being to weak even in contrast to analysts. What proves particularly frustrating for more skilled and technical colleagues are precisely these individuals at people management roles, who are there primarily due to connections, deriving benefits from working alongside more skilled colleagues, rather than on account of their own merit.

Fairness appears to be a rarity in this industry, where even individuals of mediocre level, as exemplified above, manage to circumvent checks that are typically reserved for others. When comparing her lack of qualifications to the current requirements for analysts, it becomes apparent that she wouldn't successfully break through to this even level under the same selection process, but somehow she manages others being one of the weakest leaders you can come across.

It is plausible that she would adopt a more amicable approach playing vanilla fiendly, employing contrasting tactics to conceal her own lack of competencies, as the alternative of resorting to bullying contradicts GS's intolerance towards such behavior. One way or another ED like those are pretty shameful but still exist not only at GS.

How is it imaginable that an individual of such questionable ethical standing, entrusted with leading the team and determining alignment with the bank's values in any quandary analysts and associates may encounter, was recruited in the first place?

HR indeed pursued non-targets in 2022, particularly focusing on female candidates as FT and others were writing about. However, no one anticipated that, instead of selecting a non-target candidate for the ED role, they would appoint a no-name individual. She arguably stands as the least formidable ED ever recruited for a front-office role at GS, as even associates trained in indigenous exhibit superior skill sets compared to her. It appears that HR may have made an unprecedented deal, overcompensating significantly to someone of such a mediocre level, like they weren't able to find a better person among those thousands of applications and internal staff. Total hr BS.