Pros
> Very advanced tech - all systems and databases in the firm are integrated under a single name (Aladdin) - which you can install modules and access as long as you have the permissions. CRM system, Account Maintenance system, Compliance systems, are all linked together - you will not have any "outdated" information or require to do any "updating". > Minimal knowledge walls except for confidential business dealings - you can learn as much as you want, there is a "wikipedia" like site where all teams have a certain amount of knowledge listed there. Slightly outdated and high-level at times, but sufficiently detailed enough to be very well-informed about any process you want to learn about. > People are approachable - no matter the rank - and are willing to spend 30 minutes to explain things to you (as long as you are asking questions relevant to their rank - no point asking about technical stuff with a MD!) > Management dares to make declarations and guarantees, and they take care of their staff - e.g. during the handling of COVID, they made multiple declarations - one where that no one would be fired until end of 2020 (barring performance issues), and another that there will be no compulsion AT ALL to return to office if we are uncomfortable doing so. Loved it when they did that.
Cons
> 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).