Lloyds Banking Group reviews

LBG used to be a great place to work, but the culture has shifted dramatically. What was once a supportive environment has become hierarchical and compliance‑by‑optics, with an increasingly clear message of “get on the bus or leave.” The organisation talks a lot about values, inclusion, and healthy challenge, but much of it feels like smoke and mirrors. People are welcomed, and the appearance of openness is encouraged, but raising concerns can be used against you. Speak Up and whistleblowing processes feel ineffective — issues are “investigated” only to be handed back to the same senior managers who already knew about the problems and took no action. Awards for inclusion and diversity look good externally, but many of the policies behind them are not meaningfully adhered to. Promotions often seem to depend on whether your face fits rather than merit. Recognition can feel self‑authored, with senior leaders writing their own award submissions. The internal hierarchy is stark. The fact that the organisation openly refers to the “top 300” as the most important people tells you everything you need to know about where priorities lie. Transparency is limited. There is a performance curve to hit, and 5% of colleagues are required to be placed on performance plans regardless of actual performance. Group Performance Share above standard is awarded to a fixed percentage of colleagues, not based on genuine contribution. Hybrid working is monitored using data that isn’t widely shared or understood by colleagues. Data integrity is a real flaw — decisions are made based on information that is incomplete, inconsistent, or not transparent, which undermines trust and confidence in leadership. AI and “new” systems are being pushed in rapidly, but they rely heavily on manual workarounds because the technology is standard out‑of‑the‑box rather than tailored to the multiple legacy organisations that have been merged together over the years. Heritage requirements and conditions are ignored, leaving colleagues to bridge the gaps manually. This creates inefficiency, frustration, and additional workload — all at the detriment of the people expected to make these systems function. Redundancies are not simply the result of business areas becoming untenable. They are planned in forum environments long before any genuine need arises. This creates a sense of instability and erodes trust, as decisions appear driven by strategic headcount targets rather than operational reality. Under Consumer Duty, the organisation promotes fairness and consistency, but in practice there are differing levels of service and SLAs depending on the type of customer. This undermines the principle of delivering good outcomes for all customers and reinforces the sense that Consumer Duty is more of a branding exercise than a lived standard. I also became aware of internal strategies focused on influencing external review platforms such as Glassdoor, LinkedIn and TrustPilot. In my experience, there was a strong emphasis on managing external perception, sometimes more so than addressing the underlying issues colleagues were raising internally. This contributed to the sense that optics were prioritised over genuine cultural improvement. It’s genuinely sad that this is the position. LBG used to be a great place to work — a place where colleagues felt valued, supported, and proud of the contribution they made. The direction of travel now feels driven by greed, optics, and senior‑level priorities, with very little consideration for the colleagues who keep the wheels turning every day.

travelling into the city onthe trains