Think outside the Box

An executive resigns from his position over an integrity problem too big to ignore.

TODAY is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.

To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.

It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief.

But this was not always the case. For more than a decade I recruited and mentored candidates through our grueling interview process. I was selected as one of 10 people (out of a firm of more than 30,000) to appear on our recruiting video, which is played on every college campus we visit around the world. In 2006 I managed the summer intern program in sales and trading in New York for the 80 college students who made the cut, out of the thousands who applied.

I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work.

When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm’s culture on their watch. I truly believe that this decline in the firm’s moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.

Over the course of my career I have had the privilege of advising two of the largest hedge funds on the planet, five of the largest asset managers in the United States, and three of the most prominent sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia. My clients have a total asset base of more than a trillion dollars. I have always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm. This view is becoming increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs. Another sign that it was time to leave.

How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.

What are three quick ways to become a leader?

a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit.

b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them.

c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.

Greg Smith is resigning today as a Goldman Sachs executive director and head of the firm’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

On connaissait le « pay to win », mais pas forcément le « pay to leave ». Un programme pour le moins original, appliqué prochainement par Amazon. Celui-ci consistera à ne garder que les salariés les plus motivés. Les autres seront gracieusement invités à démissionner, une fois par an, en échange d'un chèque de 2000 dollars la première fois. Il augmentera ensuite de 1000 dollars chaque année, jusqu'à un montant maximum de 5000 dollars. Cette « prime de démission » sera versée en complément du salaire.

L'idée de « pay to leave » a émergé dans la société Zappos, spécialisée dans la vente en ligne de vêtements. Pour le président d'Amazon Jeff Bezos, l'intérêt est réciproque puisque l'entreprise se débarrasse légalement des employés mécontents susceptibles de peser sur la productivité. C'est dans une lettre adressée à ses actionnaires qu'il a annoncé la mise en place de ce programme qui risque d'en intéresser plus d'un.

Mais là-encore, le principe est critiqué puisque le « pay to leave » ne concernerait que les salariés travaillant dans d'immenses centres logistiques, où la pénibilité des conditions de travail et les grèves du personnel sont réputées. Il ne s'adressera pas non plus aux intérimaires, bien que ces derniers constituent le recours idéal lors des fêtes de fin d'année. Reste à savoir si le programme débarquera en Europe.       

LaDépêche.fr