Transparency of the process

Although all candidates were able to describe the different stages of the promotion process few of them were able to explain in any detail about what happened at each of these stages, especially how decisions were made.

Perhaps because of this, almost all of the candidates, across both appointed and non-appointed groups, men and women, saw the process as lacking transparency and being difficult to understand:

“But it’s a very opaque process. You know, we all know, kind of theoretically, how it works but it all happens behind closed doors so there’s no transparency” (Bridgit, not appointed).

“No visibility at all. It’s completely – and probably this is why today they are doing that, I’m not critical about that – unknown to you what happens.

To be honest I think this is the right way to do that because otherwise people start making calls and playing games. You don’t have visibility at all of how the process works until the day you receive the call” (Joseph, appointed).

Interestingly, Joseph recognises the lack of transparency in the process and yet is supportive of it. This is perhaps a reflection of his success but for candidates who are not appointed the lack of transparency creates confusion, especially when they make comparisons with those who are appointed:

“I think that my frustration, it’s not even frustration it’s confusion, is I don’t understand it enough; I’m not sure whether it’s ever possible to be as transparent that everybody who isn’t an MD can understand it completely”

(Olivia, not appointed).

“It’s frustrating in some ways, it’s like a black box and that’s the way it’s designed to be. It’s not meant to be transparent. So it’s frustrating that you have no idea, relatively, how you are positioned” (Marcus, not appointed).

Because of its lack of transparency, candidates speculate about what goes on at the most senior-level meetings, at which even their most immediate business heads are not present:

“ …… they sort of agree on who’s going to get through but at no point during the day do they say, “Yes, this person”, because it then goes in to what we all think of as a black box and what comes out the other side may not necessarily be the same as what went in the previous day. And it’s not sort of the previous day; it’s a week before or whatever” (Anna, not appointed).

Several candidates used the metaphor ‘black box’. However, for all its lack of transparency, many of the candidates saw it as a fair and thorough process:

“ ….but let me also comment on the process. The process, I think, is a fairly rigorous one, given the number of people, experienced bankers that are spoken to” (Pietro, appointed).

“I think they are very thorough, […] it’s positively surprising the firm really takes so much interest in meritocracy and making the right and fairest assessment. I mean, it is long, it’s cumbersome, and it’s really thorough”

(Irena, appointed).

Many of those candidates who were appointed recognised that their view of the process may be coloured by their success within it and that had they not been successful they may have been more critical of it. However even those candidates who had not been appointed described it in a positive way:

“I have quite a bit of faith in the process itself, so I don’t think that it’s unfair” (Paolo, not appointed).

“But for all my frustrations with the process, I don’t get the sense that Globank is doing a bad job […]it feels like it's moving in the right direction of being more egalitarian across businesses than it used to be” (Olivia not appointed).

One of the reasons for the formal process being seen as fair is because so many people are consulted about each candidate’s suitability for the position during the due diligence stage. One woman who was appointed said that you might be able to pull the wool over the eyes of two or three buddy MDs but not over 15-20 of them.

However, a small number held very strong views about the process as a whole:

“Non-transparent, horse trading, biased, threatening, unpredictable, couloirs¹⁷ – very Machiavellian. Which is fine; but if it’s Machiavellian tell me it’s Machiavellian. Do you want me to continue?” (Tim, appointed).

17 The candidate explained his use of the word couloirs: “It’s basically some things are just being discussed behind closed doors, ‘sh, sh’, and all those kinds of things”.

“ … if I was making lots of money and about to leave because I didn’t make MD then I’ve got a better chance of being made MD. Various other side deals, there tends to be lots of side deals e.g. I was making lots of money and I was about to go ape-shit and leave the firm if I didn’t become MD then they would say we’ll make you MD next year” (Patrick, not appointed).

As the process progressed over the three months October to December, candidates provided different accounts in terms of the feedback they received and this, too, fed into the opaque nature of the process. One woman said:

“I didn’t hear anything and it goes intentionally, dreadfully quiet. You are aware these meetings are happening but you are not sure when they’re happening and you have to put it out of sight, out of mind, because no one will tell you anything because I guess the truth is the ink is not really, really dry until it is announced. So I would have loved someone to have come back and say or just to have just winked or something you know but they don’t and I think that is standard across the organization. I don’t think anyone wants to make any promises or let the cat out of the bag – positive or negative” (Angelique, appointed)