Pros
Some talented individual contributors who are trying to do the right thing
Stable book of business in certain segments
3 weeks PTO and 5 sick days per year
Cons
Upper management is disconnected from day-to-day underwriting realities and continues to push strategies that feel more theoretical than practical. There is a noticeable gap between stated goals and how underwriting is actually expected to perform in the field.
Middle management operates like a closed circle. Advancement, recognition, and even basic support often feel tied more to relationships than performance. If you're not part of the “in-group,” your contributions will go unnoticed regardless of results.
Underwriting practices themselves are inconsistent and, at times, contradictory. Expectations shift without clear communication, making it difficult to build a sustainable and disciplined approach to risk selection. It often feels like underwriters are held accountable for outcomes without being given a stable framework to succeed. System errors and inefficiencies continue to bedevil the department.
The most frustrating aspect was compensation. Despite being on the team for the full year and contributing as well as I could given constraints around staffing and appetite, was denied an annual bonus due to performance issues that were formalized in the new calendar year. If this decision is permissible I could not find it in my contract. The declination undermines trust and sends the message that contributions are not valued in a consistent or fair way.