Career dead-end at ING Australia - Recensione dipendente - Senior Manager presso ING

I worked at ING Australia ("IBAL") for three years in the risk team. I joined this bank primarily for the flexibility on offer, after over a decade in more demanding roles at some Big 4's. My opinions below are based on my experience in this team and my observations of staff and management at the bank that I encountered during my time at this company. I am of the opinion that this bank has all of the drawbacks of working for a bank - toxic managers, demanding workloads, infantilization of staff, and more recently, a reduction or removal of flexibility - and none of the typical upside that can be found from working at a major Australian bank, including competitive remuneration, career and learning opportunities, and other miscellaneous perks (corporate discounts, in-house product discounts, additional paid leave and so on are sub-par at IBAL). There is in my opinion a lack of talent at this bank, together with a lack of interesting work. I've put up with some dreadful working conditions in the past because I was working with smart people and learning a lot. It's just not there in any meaningful quantity at IBAL. Talent goes to banks who pay for it, or to those who provide learning and career opportunities. IBAL just discards talent, or loses them, and the upper management just carries on and squeezes the remainders who are left over to carry the workload. Despite being rated as performance "exceeds expectations" in my first year at the bank, variable remuneration was only ever a small fraction of what was clearly communicated to me in the recruitment process. I think this is one of the key reasons IBAL fails to attract and retain talented staff in the Australian banking market. What remains is a whole lot of mediocrity. Staff who just can't be bothered to outperform (or even perform much at all) because, understandably, they won't be rewarded for it, either directly with a meaningful bonus, or with some kind of career opportunity. This feeds into the cycle of mediocre output, resignations and short-staffed teams. There was a very high exit rate for my team towards the end of my term. Starting with the exit of our head of team, and the handover to the numerous temporary fill-ins, was handled incredibly poorly by the head of the department, in my opinion. Taking more than a year to fill an EM role should be taken as a sign that you have a problem (or are the problem, perhaps). Gaps in staff were frequently filled by short-term assignments from head office. Executive managers are also overrepresented by assignments from head office. If you're looking to move up the corporate ladder at this bank, your chances may be slim because head office seems to prefer to appoint career managers from head office. Do check the exit rate for your proposed team if you take an interview with this bank. Desk managers that I worked with contributed little to the workload, and it could be because they are completely tied up in meetings, all of the time. I've never worked at such a pro-meeting bank before. I encountered staff, not just senior management, who spent their entire days just doing meetings. It was a constant battle to cancel unnecessary meetings so that I could manage my workload. Despite the reasonably flat hierarchy, the bureaucracy of this bank astounded me. Further, if you are in a role that requires any interaction with head office (located in the Netherlands), you will certainly be required to join after-hours meetings. I found head office staff to be frequently inconsiderate when booking meetings. Many requests came from them for Friday evening meetings, or same-day late evening meetings, as if they don't anticipate that we may have a life outside of work during the week, or expect us to just cancel any plans that we may have had for that night. The standard contract will require you to be available to work until 9pm. Some in my team frequently worked later. Some people may not mind this if they are provided with flexibility in return, but IBAL has steadily been removing this "perk", which ultimately led to my own resignation, and the resignation of others in my team. During my time there, it seemed that the focus of upper management was to cut costs, to not spend any money. This isn't great for a bank that I believe, based on my experience at other banks, is sorely underinvested in systems, technology, and people. Technology at this bank is about a decade behind what you would see at the major Australian banks. Aside from all of this, the Sydney office itself has a nasty, cheap call-centre type vibe. With the removal of flexibility of WFH, it's a very grim place to spend your time. It's all cramped hot-desking, poor ventilation and greyness in an ugly tower building situated in the poor man's part of town.