Terrible leadership - Anonymous employee Texas Capital Employee Review

1.0
Mar 17, 2023
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Not many pro's anymore. If you're on a leader's 'good-side' and can stay there, you'll be rewarded well. But if not, you might as well leave.

Cons

I started at TCB several years ago under previous leadership and it was a wonderful place to work. Very collaborative, engaging and managers generally wanted you to succeed and coached you through mistakes to help you get better. The last couple of years with new leadership has been terrible. Working 70+ hours per week, criticized at every opportunity if something isn't perfect. I was terrified to send an email or set up a meeting for fear that my 'tone' or wording wasn't right. If the way I did it wasn't the way my manager would have done it, I was docked for it. No coaching, just an immediate documentation of the "mistake". Once your on a manager's bad side, there is no coming back from it no matter what you do. The most miserable last two years of my career here. No flexibility of working from home, all must be in office 5 days a week.

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