Compare St. James's Place Wealth Management vs Baton Rouge General BETA

See how Baton Rouge General vs. St. James's Place Wealth Management compare on employee ratings, job openings, CEO approval, business outlook and more.
St. James's Place Wealth Management company icon

St. James's Place Wealth Management

Employee Ratings

Overall Rating
(full-time and part-time employees only)
Overall Rating
(full-time and part-time employees only)
4.0
(based on 119 reviews)
Overall Rating
(full-time and part-time employees only)
3.7
(based on 90 reviews)
Career Opportunities
Career Opportunities
4.0
Career Opportunities
3.6
Compensation & Benefits
Compensation & Benefits
3.7
Compensation & Benefits
3.3
Work-life balance
Work-life balance
3.9
Work-life balance
3.7
Senior Management
Senior Management
3.8
Senior Management
3.2
Culture & Values
Culture & Values
4.0
Culture & Values
3.8
CEO Approval
CEO Approval
St. James's Place Wealth Management Ceo Andrew Croft
92%
92%Andrew Croft
CEO Approval
Baton Rouge General Ceo Edgardo Tenreiro
90%
90%Edgardo Tenreiro
% Recommend to a friend
% Recommend to a friend
80%
% Recommend to a friend
70%
Positive Business Outlook
Positive Business Outlook
61%
Positive Business Outlook
57%

Salaries

Salaries for similar jobs
There are no salaries matching this company.
There are no salaries matching this company.

What Employees Say

Pros
Pros
"Work life balance"(in 10 reviews)
"Sjp"(in 10 reviews)
Pros
"Good benefits"(in 5 reviews)
"Great place"(in 5 reviews)
Cons
Cons
"Sjp"(in 10 reviews)
"Head office"(in 7 reviews)
Cons
"Upper management"(in 4 reviews)
"Low pay"(in 3 reviews)
Featured Review

Current Employee - Divisional Director

I have been working at St. James's Place Wealth Management full-time

Pros

Great people and fantastic culture

Cons

You won’t know how good it is unless you work there and embrace it.

Former Employee - Clinical Informatics Analyst

I worked at Baton Rouge General full-time

Pros

Summary: I honestly had very high hopes for my time at the Baton Rouge General Medical Center prior to my arrival, but I walked away with exceedingly more cons than pros. The pros: REWARDS FOR... BEING HEALTHY: Every year if you’re full-time, you’re eligible to get a $150 gift card that can be used in the hospital if you pass the biometric screening (e.g. waist circumference). COLLEAGUES: Employees in the department generally get along well with each other, with the exception of one or two outliers. There are a number of great people working who are outside of management, and even a couple of individuals who are in leadership that are nice to work with as well. For the most part, people are open to answering questions and helping as they can.

Cons

Summary: The picture that is painted in the interview is quite different from reality. The work environment is quite toxic and staff morale throughout the department was consistently low. Human... Resources has been aware for quite some time, but nothing has changed except that leadership provides more food to staff- a need that was not voiced. Employees that have been with the organization for over 10 years have left, as well as employees with less than a year. Leadership in the department have not taken any interest in employee retention and have said to staff that, “This is just how things go. It happens in cycles”. The Breakdown: TRAINING: Training was very unstructured and offered very little to actual prepare its employees. Those doing the training even admitted just as much and offered their apologies. TECHNOLOGY: One of the company’s values is innovation, but the technology here leaves much to be desired. PAY: The pay is quite low and there is little room for negotiation. Once you accept the role and view the pay range on the internal website, you will realize just how low of an offer it was. There is no rhyme or reason to it, and wages are far from fair, especially considering that this is a salaried position and there is a lot of after hours work that is required. The crazy part is, that someone hired after you with less experience and education could still make significantly more than you do from the start. WORK/LIFE BALANCE: There is very little work/life balance in this department. The on-call schedule requirements that were told in my interview did not match what was required by the team once I started. We were on-call more often than stated and the reality did not align with what I was originally told it would be until my last month of employment. On several occasions that the team was needed outside of traditional work hours, it was communicated at the last minute. LACK OF QUALITY: There is an overall lack of quality control, and the perception of physicians is above all else. Failures are heavily downplayed, and almost nothing will stop a project from moving forward. If you care about quality, efficiency, and outcomes, this is not the place for you. HUMAN RESOURCES: HR is well aware of the low morale in the department, and turnover seems high. Employee engagement surveys are completed anonymously twice a year. The IS department tends to be amongst the lower scoring departments, so HR conducts a roundtable of sorts with staff. It is difficult to speak freely because a member of management reportedly has to be in the room, and when employees voice their concerns, it feels like HR is on the side of leadership. LEADERSHIP: Unchecked egos, gaslighting, and a gross lack of accountability by leadership contribute to a toxic work environment. Despite what staff expresses in roundtables following employee engagement surveys, the only thing that changes is that more food is provided to staff, which is far from what is really needed. There is no interest in fixing true problems, and leadership does not take accountability for how their actions have led to departmental discord. In the interview, you may be told that they want to bring in fresh perspectives, but after being there you will likely soon realize that groupthink is the expectation. When you resign, they show no interest in learning why you have decided to leave. You are just a body, and everyone else is the problem in their eyes. Common human decency seems non-existent. *Middle management knows far less about the clinical applications than the people that are being supervised and lack basic troubleshooting skills. When leading projects, short-sighted decisions are frequently made, and as a result the team often has to do a lot of rework just prior to go-lives. Aside from that, seeds of distrust are sown when management takes it upon themselves to quickly disseminate information provided to them in private, to other staff via text message, word of mouth, or other modality. Another issue that causes distrust is that often times certain team members are singled out, and through hushed whispers in a cubicle, management solicits advice that will impact the whole team, and then only give the rest of the team the directive. The lack of honesty and transparency does not lend well to trust or a great working relationship amongst peers, or between staff and management. *Senior leadership reads as disingenuous, callous, and lacking empathy. At all times, you are expected to put the needs of the organization first. Death and mental health mean nothing, and neither does holding themselves accountable. There is a need to control the narrative and a hyper focus on optics, so despite having nothing but good reviews during your tenure, you may be shown the door as an exercise to wield their final semblance of power and to save face, if you decide to resign and they do not see an immediate use for you. The egos of certain individuals in senior leadership are bruised quite easily and the response received by employees is retaliation. While others in leadership may recognize that what is happening is wrong, they will hold their tongue and sit idly by. They do not care about you while you are there so do not expect anything more during your departure.

Advice to Management

The leadership in the IS department needs to be overhauled. In the words of Frederik Noel, “It takes both sides to build a bridge.”

Job Postings