Claims Management Specialist - Avis employé Employé (anonyme) Selective Insurance

3,0
25 avr. 2017
Employé (anonyme)
Recommande
Approbation du PDG
Perspective commerciale

Avantages

This position is undergoing significant changes, and I believe there are CMS roles in every state that Selective writes business in. I am sure it varies by state, because different supervisors oversee different regions. In my particular region, we were reporting to two supervisors. See cons. However, the pros to working here include no micromanagement and they trust you to get your work done. There is a lot of flexibility working from home. The benefits were ok (not the best I've seen but not the worst either). They are willing to pay for good adjusters and a company car, phone, and all the office equipment is included (beware of the amount taken out per check for the car). Coworkers care for the most part about each other and doing good work. There are some great people who work here in several departments, but if good talent is continuously overlooked, that good talent will go elsewhere.

Inconvénients

Reporting to two supervisors was very stressful. I believe that is why they are changing this structure. Handling four lines of coverage is stressful as well if multi-line is not your area of expertise. Large territories, small authority numbers, a lot of 'checklist' type requirements, and antiquated systems make the job difficult.

Découvrez plus d’avis sur Selective Insurance

5,0
17 avr. 2026
Employé (anonyme)
Recommande
Approbation du PDG
Perspective commerciale

Avantages

Strong but difficult leadership during transformation.

Inconvénients

Relocation causing some some concern

2
1,0
26 mai 2026
Recommande
Approbation du PDG
Perspective commerciale

Avantages

Decent benefits and decent coworkers

Inconvénients

Working at Selective was a toxic work environment shaped by favoritism, excessive workload expectations, and poor boundaries around employee availability. Management often applied expectations unevenly, which created a lack of fairness and accountability. High performance did not always seem to be the primary factor in decision-making, which undermined trust in leadership. There was also a strong “big fish, small pond” dynamic, where internal status and informal influence often carried more weight than actual performance or collaboration. This contributed to a highly political environment where trust between colleagues was limited and information did not always feel safe to share openly. Employees were expected to be available far beyond normal working hours, creating an unsustainable “always on” culture with no real work-life balance. The workload was consistently too high for the compensation provided. Internal politics further interfered with day-to-day work and made collaboration more difficult than it needed to be. In practice, this environment often encouraged self-preservation over teamwork, which made it difficult to build trust or rely on others consistently. Overall, the environment was not structured in a way that supported long-term employee wellbeing or retention. This is not a workplace that supports a healthy work-life balance. For me, the experience felt unsustainable, and over time it became clear that the environment was not conducive to long-term growth or wellbeing.

2
Voir les avis par: Utile|Évaluation|Date|Tout