Let's make work better.

Welches Unternehmen suchst du?
ING Deutschland Logo

ING 
Deutschland
Bewertung

Toxic culture. Chaotic place. Not recommended at all.

1,8
Nicht empfohlen
Ex-Angestellte/r oder Arbeiter/inHat zum Zeitpunkt der Bewertung nicht mehr bei ING Deutschland in Frankfurt (Oder) gearbeitet.

Gut am Arbeitgeber finde ich

Employees at the reception

Schlecht am Arbeitgeber finde ich

Lack of fairness and transparency, biased performance reviews, arbitrary budget allocations among team members, unclear expectations and moving targets, never-ending rule changes, presenteesim culture ... Too many things creating confusion, undermining trust and disregarding employees' well being.

Arbeitsatmosphäre

The overall workplace environment is negatively impacted by a pervasive gossip culture that undermines trust and professional relationships. Furthermore, presenteeism is emphasized, creating pressure to remain at the office regardless of productivity or personal health. Loud telephone or bilateral conversations in open office environment or not using private rooms for such purposes are the extension of the toxic presenteesim culture

Kommunikation

Management frequently fails to provide clear expectations for employees’ roles and deliverables. Guidance remains vague, fostering confusion and inefficiency. The communication style also favors long meetings for minor things leading to significant time wastage.

Kollegenzusammenhalt

Favoritism exacerbates divisions within teams, creating a lack of unity and collaboration. Departments operate as understaffed, and some demonstrate excessive woke culture tendencies.

Work-Life-Balance

Work-from-office mandates are enforced without considering employees' individual needs or preferences. Significant disparity in workload distribution is not uncommon. Employees who complain more are often assigned less or awarded more, leading to perceived inequities in task delegation.

Vorgesetztenverhalten

Supervisors display a lack of objectivity during performance reviews, as no standardized criteria are in place. This results in biased evaluations heavily influenced by personal preferences. Bad managers may choose to exploit employees until they burn out, with little regard for their physical and financial well-being. Team meetings held in manager-preferred locations (sometimes remote places like trekking sites) disregard employee convenience.

Interessante Aufgaben

Any task can be interesting when planned and communicated well, but way of working is rather chaotic.

Gleichberechtigung

There is no transparency in pay structures, and employees performing comparable work receive unequal pay. The allocation of department budgets appears biased, favoring certain employees or projects without supporting collective or individual professional growth.

Umgang mit älteren Kollegen

There is limited acknowledgment of the unique contributions and needs of older employees, leading to missed opportunities for leveraging their experience and mentoring potential

Arbeitsbedingungen

Constantly changing rules make it challenging for employees to stay compliant and adapt effectively. This lack of consistency contributes to stress and confusion in the workplace.

Gehalt/Sozialleistungen

Transparency and clear roadmap is non-existent, leading to dissatisfaction and scepticism. Benefits and bonuses seem arbitrarily assigned, reflecting favoritism rather than merit.

Image

The organization’s image suffers due to its disregard for employee feedback, with surveys reduced to numeric assessments without meaningful follow-up actions. This damages trust and morale.

Karriere/Weiterbildung

There is no clear framework for promotions or career progression. Managers fail to support employees’ development, leaving many feeling exploited and undervalued.


Umwelt-/Sozialbewusstsein

1Hilfreichfindet das hilfreich1Zustimmenstimmt zuMeldenTeilen
Anmelden