* No career path for engineers. There are no criteria for promotion, there are no positions for technical people above "vice president". (A fancy-sounding title, but it's basically equivalent to "senior software engineer". Google has 5 more promotions after "senior".) I never saw anyone worthy get promoted, but I did see promotions used to play games.
* Performance reviews are useless. It's 100% manager driven, and your manager's not a programmer. Despite solving problems for teams in Singapore, Chicago, and New York, with recognition from the CTO of the company, I never got a performance review higher than "meets expectations". Are you fucking kidding me?
* Uncompetitive compensation. Google pays me twice as much as BAC. The peer bonuses I've received at Google sum to more than I ever got in real bonuses or raises at BAC.
* No perks whatsoever. People got notes from building management for having too many figures on their desks. Want coffee? Leave and buy it. Want food at 6pm? Leave and buy it, except you're in the financial district, so just give up and go home.
(They were so intent on cost cutting that they actually installed waterless urinals. The whole building smells like urine as a result!)
But yeah, just hire a bunch of college kids that don't know any better. LGTM.
(Some other posts mention things like "lack of autonomy" as being their problem. That's not their problem. You can do whatever you want and you mostly have the freedom to solve problems the way you want to. You just aren't going to be rewarded for doing a good job, because nobody can tell the good from the bad.)
>"...because nobody can tell the good from the bad."
This has been one of the most persistent and extreme frustrations in my working life - working for people who are so out of touch with the technology which they ostensibly manage that you'd have to stage an internal marketing / education campaign to establish ideas that would be self-evident to someone literate.
Wow, that's atrocious. You should seriously consider giving this feedback to them (if you haven't already). Even an anonymous letter would be helpful. If they're truly intent on changing their ways to value tech more, they'll take your words to heart. If not, nothing can save them.
A big company is typically sitting on a stable formula for printing money. Why should they change? (Because the world changes and that formula isn't perfectly stable, but the problem is to get them to know that.)
But that's how companies go out of business. They kill all the calves that compete for grass with the cash cow, and when the cash cow finally dies, they are left with no cow at all.
* Uncompetitive compensation. Google pays me twice as much as BAC. The peer bonuses I've received at Google sum to more than I ever got in real bonuses or raises at BAC.
* No perks whatsoever. People got notes from building management for having too many figures on their desks. Want coffee? Leave and buy it. Want food at 6pm? Leave and buy it, except you're in the financial district, so just give up and go home.
These are the big two. People may put up with a crappy work environment if they really need the money, but with Twitter/Google/Facebook paying more, why bother?
You just aren't going to be rewarded for doing a good job, because nobody can tell the good from the bad.
That right there is the crux of the matter. Lots of big companies use office politics as a (very poor) proxy for the evaluation of a programming group. Numbers are fictionalized and "old sayings" and programmer memes are used in decision making as if they were facts. Actual numbers that don't fit in with the party line are automatically questioned -- just because.
Oh technology, I agree. It's just that it's a different problem, and Google has very little experience at it.
Also, I don't think people would be depositing too much money at Google Bank.
I want to add that banking is heavily regulated, and the Google Boys would probably chafe under that.
Google has started down the path to become just another giant company that's a refuge for the mediocre. It'll take a decade or two to get there, but the early signs are already visible.
Forgive me if I missed something but it sure sounds like banks are going to get their teeth knocked out if that's what they think constitutes 'hand-to-hand combat' for recruiting tech talent. It's good to focus more on engineering schools but that is only putting you at the start line against everyone else trying to recruit IT grads.
I don't know the financial industry well, but it sounds like they have some of the myopia problems that other old, big industries have when it comes to recruiting IT people. They look around and wonder why people don't want to work with them, and think if only they recruit harder they'll fix the problem.
IMO part of their problem is that their organizational cultures don't put a high priority on IT, nor do they necessarily give IT the autonomy they need to deliver value. So if you do succeed in hiring great people they'll get frustrated and eventually leave. The work is naturally not going to be as sexy as startup land or dedicated tech companies, but the bureaucracy is a killer.
The other side of that is that IT people aren't valued as much as managers and regular line of business employees, so naturally they're loath to pay at market rates for IT people.
I work at a major north american bank as a mobile developer. Windows XP laptop from 2005, completely locked down so we can hardly do anything. We develop, strictly on that laptop, for 12 separate devices. There are 8 of us working in a 14' * 10' room, with no natural light coming in.
Employee. For some reason, everyone else gets a large cube that they're going to hang onto for quite awhile, and we've been moved building to building 3 times within a year, all within shittier than the last conference rooms.
Sadly, this probably is because your manager is "freelancing" on the mobile app on a shoe-string budget because it doesn't have support from most of management. The result is that it has to camouflage in some other budget. The way to win here is to ask your boss or your boss' boss for a nice, well paid, ideally somewhat privileged project in 6 months, then hold him to it. Or move to a decent company of course.
Not necessarily saying anything about your particular situation, but I've seen this before.
Stability. Working on getting my own company/products off the ground, once that levels out, I'll quit. I'm looking to save around 25k to travel + use for rent for about a year and a half for side projects and to build my skills up.
Your theory actually matches my experience. I was at a hedge fund for 2.5 years doing tech. I was always a cost center. People there just didn't really appreciate you even though tech is so essential to what they do. We had more servers than people.
Then I left and went to a software company and count this as one of the best decision I've ever made.
Tech people in finance are so miserable, partly because people in finance are miserable and they pass on their misery to you if you're in a supporting role. Why do people go into finance? A lot of them do it purely for the money. I won't pass any judgment on that motive but in my experience you often end up fighting your own passions until you're exhausted. Doing software, especially now, is a good combination of both. Maybe I would have made more money in finance but I'm OK giving up some cash to satisfy my other passions and needs. After all, isn't that the purpose of money in the first place?
As a bank worker in a no engineering tech role, I think the myopia you describe is IMO a significant factor.
From a retail banking perspective, many banks are starting to modernize their practices and play catch up for mobile. But most banks are stuck in rigid methodology, culture and solutions established in what I call the first generation of online banking. Projects are treated as continuations o this foundation and continue with antiquated development methodologies and back end technology. Since acceptable products get shipped, there's no business incentive to modernize.
Heh. I was working for a multinational petroleum company on software that literally had multi-millions of dollars in repercussions every 15 minutes if it didn't work right, and people in the company balked at paying $100k for a programmer. The company had an incredibly regressive attitude towards software and was continually paying the price for it. (But they made so much money, they failed to notice. Petroleum products traders also used to joke that if you didn't have enough profits, just send this company an invoice, and they'd pay it. Except, it wasn't exactly a joke.)
Most oil companies see their employees that are not actual engineers (mechanical, chemical, petroleum, etc.) as the helpers, not much better than hiring a welder on contract for a job.
The best way to make money with oil companies with tech is to get hired as an independent contractor. With the big firms there is usually always more work and so you could park your bum there for a long time (possibly years) and get paid equivalent or more than their engineering staff but without the other perks.
Alternatively / complimentarily, deliver nicer working conditions. Programming jobs attached to banks are reputed to comprise some combination of attributes like: stodgy, boring, formal, high stress, long hours, not respected, and having projects/job advancement driven by backstabbing-politics and seniority instead of technical merit...
Give people saner work-weeks and adequate vacation, though, and you might be able to get more of them and at better prices.
100,000 and up. You can find jobs advertising 500,000 for programmers in NY with a simple search (I just saw a few), and there are stories of top programmers making millions (one which made it to HN some months ago).
In my anecdotal experience it's competitive with MS and Amazon, at least for offers to new grads. Everything I saw was 90s to low six figures in Chicago, goes a bit higher in New York. Not sure what it's like at big banks, all my experience is with prop firms, I'd imagine it's similar though.
They're concerned about the top talent going to silicon valley, because the salaries are still high there (Google and Facebook, after all make as much or more money than most banks), and banks don't need many programmers, they just need good ones...
Quality is the key word. I work for a North American bank (not an engineering role) and at least in my experience you really have to be insanely exceptional junior talent or exceptional in a senior role to command something high
I've seen this again and again, where some alpha-male exec who knows nothing about programming just angrily asserts, "Those guys aren't worth $100,000!" with nothing concrete to back it up.
I was hoping for actual hand to hand combat. To the death, preferably. Regardless of who wins, or whether it attracts more tech talent, fewer bankers sounds like a win.
I've worked in development in the Big 4 in the US banking market.
Key Issues:
1) Product managers and Product Leads with MBAs (not all bad) and zero tech or design knowledge (bad)
2) Contracting out key roles to people who leave or disappear in less than a year, then just churning a new one in
3) Wildly uninteresting products built on ancient, dry legacy platforms
4) Feature update life cycles that can be measured in years, not months weeks or days.
5) Intense internal political battles between legacy middle and upper management who have nothing to offer the product.
6) Poor pay and even poorer respect
7) Not a creative environment.
I was just recruited for a mobile product manager role at the #1 or #2 bank in the US and I listened until I heard they intended it only to be a 6 month contract. I asked them how they planned to deal with a product after getting rid of the strategic head after 6 months -- to which of course there was no answer. Its this kind of nonsense that keeps them in back of IT recruiting.
I work at MegaCorp but from what I've head from the contractors I work with the banks are the worst places to work. Horrible conditions, mediocre pay, low budget for the project(computers keyboard even mice), and endless work weeks. They said unless you work on the main website people come to (bofa.com, wellsfargo.com) you don't want to work there.
-Only real MAJOR PLUS is I work remotely. This is huge and in the company I got acquired from would be unheard of and still is in most corporations. Unfortunately they are trying to get rid of this and nobody joining now is supposed to be allowed to do it.
Negatives...
-Try to get anything done - 6 weeks. Want a VM? No joke - took us over 6 months. 5 minutes of works = 3 weeks of paperwork. It's basically a small government full of red-tape. Maybe this is just a big company thing, but even in my acquired financial firm we got stuff done in a reasonable amount of time.
-You could get tapped on the shoulder at any moment and given your walking papers. There is no logic and no loyalty. It's all about money, money, money. CEO gets 11% bonus, workers are lucky to get anything. There must be like 50 levels of management. There seems to be more management than people actually doing things and they all need to justify their positions.
-It ain't cool code at all, but that's what side projects at home are for.
Salary...
-Since I work remotely it's hard to judge. If I lived in San Fran, I would be homeless on this salary. For the area I'm in, I scrape by. I will say it's a little more than a lot of dev jobs around here though. Salaries were REALLY hit hard around here and never recovered.
-Bonuses and Cost of Living are not dependent upon your work quality but a lot more political, who your manager is and if what you got to work on got noticed by any bigwigs. You basically get nothing in comparison to cost of living around the country. Maybe $50 a pay check.
-Healthcare - Blows. Ever since Obamacare, we pay MUCH more and basically aren't covered for much of anything for the first x $1000
...But, given were I live and the salaries being offered I'm sticking it out, as long as I can continue working remotely and saving on gas expenses and commute time.
Cathy Bessant, the English major turned "tech-exec" who once said "I frequently design datacenter structures on the back of a napkin—much to the horror of my team" (http://www.waterstechnology.com/waters/feature/2076214/bank-...) is suddenly going to go after tech-talent? Har Har.
In the past 5 years, tech wages have only gone in one direction at the Bank: down. There is no technical talent in management whatsoever (and no technical career path). Don't believe me? If you ever interview there, ask to speak with your hiring boss's boss. See how technical they are. You will not find tech talent more than one level deep in management.
This is a company that hired an Oceanographer (http://www.rubinworldwide.com/team.php) to tell them how they are spending too much on IT, and are dumb enough to believe it. As Steve Jobs said, once you compete on price (instead of value) you have already lost. Well, at the Bank it's just cut, cut, cut. No one Sr in IT appreciates or understands enough about technology to actually communicate its value to the business. This is a company in its death throes - the management is just too ignorant to recognize it.
Here is why they can't retain talent:
* No career path for engineers. There are no criteria for promotion, there are no positions for technical people above "vice president". (A fancy-sounding title, but it's basically equivalent to "senior software engineer". Google has 5 more promotions after "senior".) I never saw anyone worthy get promoted, but I did see promotions used to play games.
* Performance reviews are useless. It's 100% manager driven, and your manager's not a programmer. Despite solving problems for teams in Singapore, Chicago, and New York, with recognition from the CTO of the company, I never got a performance review higher than "meets expectations". Are you fucking kidding me?
* Uncompetitive compensation. Google pays me twice as much as BAC. The peer bonuses I've received at Google sum to more than I ever got in real bonuses or raises at BAC.
* No perks whatsoever. People got notes from building management for having too many figures on their desks. Want coffee? Leave and buy it. Want food at 6pm? Leave and buy it, except you're in the financial district, so just give up and go home.
(They were so intent on cost cutting that they actually installed waterless urinals. The whole building smells like urine as a result!)
But yeah, just hire a bunch of college kids that don't know any better. LGTM.
(Some other posts mention things like "lack of autonomy" as being their problem. That's not their problem. You can do whatever you want and you mostly have the freedom to solve problems the way you want to. You just aren't going to be rewarded for doing a good job, because nobody can tell the good from the bad.)