It was great in the beginning... - Anonymous employee Texas Capital Employee Review

2.0
Jan 22, 2018
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Flexible with hours, great with work/life balance, stocked breakrooms - drinks, utensils, employee engagements like Corporate Challenge

Cons

It was great in the beginning... There are a lot of politics and gossip that take place and a serious lack of communication. Good, quality talent is on the bench but they will promote anyone to VP or higher because of tenure only not because of true results being delivered; all of which affects the culture that everyone used to love.

avatar
Texas Capital Response
8y
Thank you for sharing your feedback. At Texas Capital Bank, we believe that employee communication and development are fundamental to our success. We continually look for ways to strengthen the areas of engagement and opportunity available to all employees of the bank. We are disappointed that your experience has not been reflective of our standards. Protecting the bank's culture is a priority for us, so we would encourage you to share your concerns with your manager or someone from the Human Resources team if you have not already done so.

Explore other reviews about Texas Capital

5.0
Apr 23, 2026
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Pays well for hard work

Cons

Nothing it is a great firm

1.0
Mar 5, 2026
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Some talented engineers and team members who try to do the right thing despite constant organizational friction.

Cons

The technology organization suffers from a lack of strong engineering leadership and accountability. Managers often avoid making firm technical or project decisions, which leads to shifting priorities and unclear direction. When initiatives struggle, responsibility is frequently pushed downward onto engineers rather than addressed at the leadership level. There has also been noticeable turnover across engineering teams while leadership continues pushing a model where only a small number of onshore “lead engineers” remain while much of the development work moves offshore. In practice this creates bottlenecks where engineers complete work during normal hours but cannot move code forward until offshore teams review and approve pull requests. Leadership has also introduced initiatives without realistic planning. When internal AI tooling was introduced, expectations around productivity were abruptly changed (for example, reducing story point estimates under the assumption AI would accelerate development). At the same time, engineering resources were directed toward building an internal AI assistant that largely functions as a wrapper around existing models while higher-priority platform work remains under-resourced. Culturally, the environment can feel dismissive toward engineers. Turnover remains high, concerns raised by teams are rarely addressed, and negative feedback about the organization has been consistent for years without meaningful change from upper management.

1
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All