As with most large banks, JPMorgan is very technology-focused. The company makes a concerted effort to consistently improve its existing technology solutions and exhibits a healthy respect for the need for constant improvement. As such, there are always many interesting problems to be solved, and JPMorgan definitely supports employees who are working towards those goals. Additionally, broad common goals are obvious to everyone in the organization, and as a result, there is generally good communication across divisions of the firm.
JPMorgan, like other banks, has a very rigid hierarchy, so it's not uncommon to see vast – and unplanned – changes at low levels as the result of fundamental changes further up the ladder (hiring or firing at senior levels). This is an effective way of bringing about change, but often times the resultant changes are poorly thought out or unnecessary.
Within the technology side of the bank, everyone is more or less on the same page about roles, responsibilities, goals, and requirements. However, outside of the technology groups, it becomes apparent that the rest of the bank views all technology costs as simple, necessary expenses and not capital outlays that could generate real revenue. As a result, there is a significant gap where employees in technology groups are less respected than their business-side counterparts.
JPMorgan constantly emphasizes the importance of a nimble organization, and it continues to struggle with becoming one. The bank works hard and fast on a particular project, without any real reconsideration of the approach. If a manager recognizes a deficiency, and that deficiency is significant, the effort is abandoned and replaced with something else. It is noteworthy that JPMorgan does even that, and doesn't just plod further into a poor decision. However, the bank should work to rebalance the projects as they progress, consistently re-tailoring them to the problem.
My interview consisted of about a 30-second phone call with a recruiter. We cut the call short because the job required two days in the office, whereas I work best in a full-time remote environment.
Long and slightly disorganized. Several changes in the follow-up interview scheduling occurred, which were usually at the last minute. The initial handoff from the headhunter was decent, but after that, it was not smooth.
The interview consisted of about a 30-second phone call with a recruiter. The interview ended early because they have in-office mandates of 2 days per week. I work best from a full-time remote environment. For any interviewer reading this, please c
My interview consisted of about a 30-second phone call with a recruiter. We cut the call short because the job required two days in the office, whereas I work best in a full-time remote environment.
Long and slightly disorganized. Several changes in the follow-up interview scheduling occurred, which were usually at the last minute. The initial handoff from the headhunter was decent, but after that, it was not smooth.
The interview consisted of about a 30-second phone call with a recruiter. The interview ended early because they have in-office mandates of 2 days per week. I work best from a full-time remote environment. For any interviewer reading this, please c