One of the more ridiculous job postings ive ever come across in my time looking for jobs to exit big 4. The pay range and expectation of 1 year in IB or transaction advisory is incredible.
Maybe this is just a personal experience, but in my first 2 years at EY, I have felt the same way on both teams I have worked on for almost every feedback cycle, which is that I move along thinking im doing/performing well, feel confident about my product, my interactions, and my professionalism, and then when feedback rolls around, I see that I was docked for multiple different things which are labeled as persistent issues or points of improvement that I was completely unaware.
Im the type of person thats very receptive to live feedback, and absolutely want to know right awat whenever im doing something to an unsatisfactory level, or if my professionalism is lacking. Despite communicating my openness to more immediate feedback, it still seems routine to not receive it, and then find out of all the things they have an issue with once feedback season rolls around. Then, after feedback, I immediately start working really hard to improve upon all of the problem areas and implement any action items that were provided, which usually leads to comments about my improvement on the next cycle feedback, alongside new issues they've found that weren't communicated to me so I didnt know to improve. The results has been a lot of 2s and 3s on my reviews, making it harder for me to pursue other internal opportunities or take on further responsibilities amongst my team and the engagement.
Do any of you all also feel this way, where you feel like you are given opportunities to improve and respond to feedback only once its been officially documented, and not throughout the rest of the cycle when you could be implementing those changes and improving much earlier? Also, if you have any suggestions for how to avoid this please let me know.