No Career Mobility, High Turnover - Senior SOX Specialist Flagstar Bank Employee Review

2.0
Mar 25, 2017
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

- Banking industry - Growing brand in metro Detroit

Cons

I worked in a spin-off of Internal Audit, and worked for the worse supervisor that I ever had yet. - Company only had 6 profitable quarters and had layoffs in 2013 and 2014. Apparently more layoffs were held in 2016. - High turnover in department - No training in department - Bad relations with internal auditors who can write you up. - No understanding or care for diversity and inclusion principles. If you are minority, you minus well count yourself out of any meaningful assignments or exposure in the company. You are automatically viewed as a threat and incompetent. - unqualified management, who lie and blame staff to get their way.

Explore other reviews about Flagstar Bank

5.0
Feb 27, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Very knowledgeable and helpful people who are experts in enterprise systems

Cons

N/A during my time with the company

2.0
Mar 10, 2026
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Benefits are decent. Average PTO

Cons

My experience with this company has been disappointing. Branch goals are unrealistic with no marketing or brand awareness to support the high goals and teams feel defeated. Senior leadership often communicates in a demeaning way, which has contributed to high turnover and declining morale. Despite emphasizing the importance of ‘hiring right,’ the President of Consumer Banking has cycled through three heads of Consumer Banking in just three years. The annual review process is long and drawn out (5 month process) and feels inconsistent and more like a popularity contest than a true evaluation of performance. Although the scale ranges from 1–5, employees are told that most ratings will fall in the 2–3 range, with 4s being rare and 5s essentially unattainable. The calibration process appears to focus more on filling predetermined rating quotas than assessing actual contributions. Employees are required to write their own reviews, which are then rewritten by leadership before being sent to HR for calibration. The final ratings often seem influenced more by internal politics than by merit. Annual increases are very minimal or zero. Overall, the environment lacks transparency, fairness, and genuine support for employee growth.

5
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All