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
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.
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...
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 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!
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.