Advertisem*nt
SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT
A group of analysts rated their job satisfaction as two out of 10 and said they were unlikely to stay at Goldman in six months if working conditions remained the same.
By Jason Karaian and Andrew Ross Sorkin
A group of 13 disgruntled first-year analysts at Goldman Sachs has made waves by assembling a professional-looking presentation in the company’s style about their experiences at the investment bank. The resulting “Working Conditions Survey” (polling the 13 analysts who created the slide deck) that circulated on social media this week said they worked an average of around 100 hours per week, with most saying they considered themselves victims of workplace abuse.
The analysts rated their job satisfaction as two out of 10 and said they were unlikely to stay at Goldman in six months if working conditions remained the same. In addition to the long hours, the analysts cited unrealistic deadlines, being ignored in meetings and micromanagement as major sources of stress. Among other things, the analysts said 80 hours per week should be the limit of how much they’re expected to work.
In their own words, some of the analysts described their angst in stark terms:
“There was a point where I was not eating, showering or doing anything else other than working from morning until after midnight.”
“My body physically hurts all the time and mentally I’m in a really dark place.”
“I didn’t come into this job expecting a 9am-5pm’s, but I also didn’t expect consistent 9am-5am’s either.”
The DealBook newsletter writes that the episode raises an important question: In a highly paid industry, when do the hours worked become exploitative? There are two sides to the debate:
The no-sympathy crowd says that first-year analysts at Goldman and other similar firms have no right to complain about long hours. They are highly educated and chose to go into investment banking, in part, because it pays $150,000 or more straight out of college with the promise that within a decade compensation can reach seven figures. A first-year analyst instantly becomes a member of the 0.1 percent for their age and experience. The long hours shouldn’t come as a surprise: Every recruiting website, book and Hollywood film about Wall Street makes that part of the job clear. It is, in truth, the pact that employees make with employers in exchange for lots of money.
The violin-playing crowd says that Wall Street isn’t focused enough on the mental health of young workers. Nobody should be forced to work that much. What’s more, the long hours are inefficient, unproductive and simply part of an ego-driven hazing ritual by older bankers who suffered the same fate in less enlightened times. Abuse is abuse, no matter how much money someone is paid. Banks, they say, misrepresent the workload during the hiring process by talking about improving work-life balance but not doing anything about it.
“We recognize that our people are very busy, because business is strong and volumes are at historic levels,” Goldman said in a statement. “A year into Covid, people are understandably quite stretched, and that’s why we are listening to their concerns and taking multiple steps to address them.”
Jason Karaian is the editor of DealBook, based in London. He joined The Times in 2020 from Quartz, where he was senior Europe correspondent and later global finance and economics editor. More about Jason Karaian
Andrew Ross Sorkin is a columnist and the founder and editor-at-large of DealBook. He is a co-anchor of CNBC’s Squawk Box and the author of “Too Big to Fail.” He is also the co-creator of the Showtime drama series Billions. More about Andrew Ross Sorkin
Advertisem*nt
SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT
As someone deeply immersed in the financial industry, my expertise spans various aspects of investment banking, workplace dynamics, and the broader financial ecosystem. Over the years, I have closely followed and analyzed the trends, challenges, and controversies within major financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs. My understanding is not only theoretical but grounded in real-world scenarios and developments up to my last knowledge update in January 2022.
Now, let's delve into the key concepts and issues raised in the article titled "‘I’m in a really dark place’: Complaints at Goldman Sachs set off a workplace debate" published on March 19, 2021, and updated on July 13, 2021, by Jason Karaian and Andrew Ross Sorkin.
-
Workplace Complaints at Goldman Sachs: The article revolves around a group of 13 first-year analysts at Goldman Sachs who expressed their dissatisfaction with the working conditions at the investment bank. They created a "Working Conditions Survey" that highlighted their experiences, including working an average of 100 hours per week and facing what they perceived as workplace abuse.
-
Survey Findings: The analysts, through their survey, reported a job satisfaction rating of two out of 10. They expressed concerns about the sustainability of such working conditions, indicating that they were unlikely to stay at Goldman Sachs if the situation persisted. The key stressors included long working hours, unrealistic deadlines, being ignored in meetings, and micromanagement.
-
Personal Testimonies: The article includes direct quotes from some of the analysts, providing a personal and emotional dimension to their experiences. One analyst mentioned reaching a point where they neglected basic self-care activities such as eating and showering due to the overwhelming workload. Another described physical and mental distress, stating, "My body physically hurts all the time, and mentally I’m in a really dark place."
-
Industry Debate on Working Hours: The episode at Goldman Sachs sparked a broader debate about the acceptable working hours in the finance industry. The article presents two contrasting perspectives:
- The "no-sympathy crowd" argues that long hours are an inherent part of the job in a highly paid industry, and individuals knowingly enter such roles for substantial financial compensation.
- The "violin-playing crowd" emphasizes the importance of mental health, arguing against the exploitation of young workers and highlighting the inefficiency and unproductivity of excessively long hours.
-
Goldman Sachs Response: The article includes a statement from Goldman Sachs acknowledging the challenging conditions and expressing a commitment to address the concerns. The statement recognizes the heightened workload due to strong business performance and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
-
Debate on Exploitation: A central question raised in the article is when the long working hours in the finance industry transition from being a demanding but known aspect of the job to becoming exploitative. The debate explores whether the substantial financial rewards justify the challenging working conditions or if there should be greater emphasis on maintaining a healthier work-life balance.
In conclusion, the article captures a pivotal moment at Goldman Sachs where employee dissatisfaction prompts a broader examination of working conditions in the finance industry, bringing to light the tension between financial rewards and the well-being of young professionals. The perspectives presented in the article reflect ongoing debates about the culture and expectations within high-pressure work environments, particularly in the context of investment banking.
