IT moving at full speed but in the wrong direction - Application-Manager Texas Capital Employee Review

2.0
Dec 31, 2021
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

There are still some good people to work with

Cons

CIO thinks what worked for him in the past will work now at TCB. That was at a very different time in a very different company. It will not work here and will be a disaster. Operating Committee is not tech savvy enough to know this. No one knows what is happening in IT. There is no communication New leaders do not care of about or know the basics of management. And it starts from the CIO. Much importance on optics. Old boys club of people who have worked with CIO in the past. Steady attrition is going on but leadership thinks it is ok because it is hiring new people. Losing an existing employee is equal to 10 new people because of their knowledge gained from experience at TCB.

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