BlackRock reviews

> 5-point rating system - where "Strongly Performed" is the center rating, and there are 2 more ratings above - "Outperformed" and "Strongly Outperformed". Makes people who perform strongly, feel average. Of course, it could be argued that it drives strong staff to work even harder (as there are 2 more grades to "attain"). Or perhaps its similar to "tall... and taller" when referring to short and tall people. My take is that "Outperformed" should already indicate a potential promotion candidate -- and "Strongly Outperformed" should not exist - as these people should already have been promoted (i.e. the concept of outperforming an outperformer feels... weird)? > Very specialist roles / high demands even at Analyst / Associate levels leading to low mobility at those levels - an "Associate" would already be expected to know all related technical & financial knowledge regarding the process (and 30-40% of people having 5-10 years experience) - at a minimum, people need to be a VP to even consider mobility into another team to learn something different. Changing teams would literally be resetting the clock (as you would not have the knowledge). Also, imagine trying to compete with people with 5-10yrs experience for promotion... even if you have the same no. of years, you'd just be on par. You'd need very special reasons / projects to get ahead - and not many of these are available due to the highly specialized teams (which mainly focus on their part of the process). > Although availability of knowledge is listed as a "Pro" above, in terms of working-level knowledge, these are recorded in procedure documents that are confusing to the new joiner, or not recorded at all. Although the process I am in is highly variable in terms of its product / country mix and the steps are very granular, the same products / countries are generally handled through the same checking points / steps (and should be listed down lest a detail is missed and downstream impacts occur).

- Pay is not that good compared to tech companies. I wouldn't have complained if that at least increased (a little if not a lot) every year but no. It'd be the same for several years and they don't care about your life changes, inflation, etc. EVERY YEAR they say the same thing "oh it's not been that good a year", even though the earnings are good? - Promotion process is a huge mess. I saw people bootlicking senior management get promoted even though they are unworthy and some talented and hard working people ignored because they actually work and not waste time talking BS and entertaining those senior management. This kind of culture is HIGHLY TOXIC and its high time people corrected it. People have taken cue and started working less and boot licking more. Also there is no clear path or definition to promotion or any measurement scale for the criteria. Its just too abstract and they expect you to already be doing the work of the role that you are trying to get promoted to. Why would I do that when I'm not getting paid for it yet? - Developer experience sucks - you get all kind of "security" crap installed on the computers that make them super slow for developers. If you don't trust software engineers to not click on stupid spam or get virus onto the computers, why hire them in the first place? The dev process becomes SUPER SLOW because of thousands of background processes running and becomes super irritating and you lose all the remaining motivation to code. How hard is it to have different policies for developers and non developers?