What is the hiring process like at AIG?

The company respects work-life balance, which was a major plus. My manager was supportive and approachable, and the team often participated in happy hours and social activities that helped build camaraderie.

The role was not what I was told it would be during the interview process. I was led to believe that I would be working on a broader range of legal and coverage issues, including long-tail bodily injury, property damage, Coverage B issues, and environmental or toxic tort claims. Instead, I was placed exclusively on construction defect claims—an area I specifically said I was not interested in. As an attorney, I was hoping for more legal analysis and coverage strategy, not repetitive claim handling. The hiring process was also disorganized and dragged out; I interviewed in December, received a verbal offer in January, and didn’t get an official written offer until February. Compensation was also lower than expected, especially compared to law firm salaries. Overall, the experience left me feeling misled and dissatisfied.

Salary and vacation days are good but be careful you are not taking on multiple roles for this position.

If you’re considering applying, make sure to ask in the interview: Will there be someone else doing what I am doing? If not, the team is understaffed and all the responsibility will rest on your shoulders. Even with the vacation days, your days will be swamped and stressful. It is NOT worth it. Out of curiosity, I’ve been looking at their latest job postings for my department and there is so much packed into one role, it’s wild. You can tell the person they’re trying to replace clearly wore too many hats and it will be a long struggle to fill this position. Are my team members working in other time zones? You can face several early morning calls based on their hiring pattern. Some teams will require annual or quarterly traveling. Over the years, the company is hiring mainly white managers domestically in the USA, while lower roles are hired abroad or contractors. Meetings to accomodate offshore hours are brutal. What percentage of the day is in meetings? If you don’t have time to deliver on output because of meetings, you will likely have to stay late to complete the work. The company seems to hire very good talkers but not a lot of do-ers. Several meetings involved more people than needed. Managers seem to think “if I have to suffer through this meeting, everyone has to suffer”. If managers are fortunate enough to delegate the deliverables, they can handle some meetings by themselves. Who would be handling my onboarding and training when I start? If it is not your direct manager, your early success will be at the mercy of your peers who understandably are not responsible for onboarding you. Sadly, I have observed that the people-managers do not like to manage people. In fact, they value those that manage the manager and the team’s roadmap plan for them. The managers don’t seem to want to oversee the team or their deliverables. If there is a job change (salary, position, hours) how is that communicated? In my experience these things were not communicated or consented to. The change would apply in the system and you would have to conform accordingly.

No pros at this point. But if you have a good boss, that is the only pro.

Overworked. Workload is impossible. Hiring process is super slow.

Great colleagues and a very collaborative culture — the office skews young and there are frequent social events that make it easy to build relationships. Compensation and benefits are excellent, including 5 weeks of PTO, 12 paid holidays, excellent health insurance (including coverage for name-brand GLP-1 medications, $500 HSA contribution), and a 9% 401(k) match. You also have the opportunity to interact with highly knowledgeable and experienced professionals across the industry. The company has strong brand recognition among brokers and other carriers, which helps maintain strong broker relationships and deal flow. There is also a wide breadth and complexity of product offerings, with endorsements available for nearly every scenario — which can be both a strength and a challenge depending on the situation.

The number of internal systems makes workflows unnecessarily complex and inefficient. Many of the systems and core technology feel dated and slow, which results in long and sometimes cumbersome processes. While the company has introduced GenAI tools to assist with certain tasks, these solutions often feel more like a temporary workaround than a true fix for the underlying technology limitations. Documentation requirements and compliance processes are highly complex, with a significant number of manual steps involved in day-to-day underwriting. This can make it easy for human error to occur while expectations for both accuracy and production volume remain very high. Management liability product offerings would also benefit from modernization. For example, making a private or not-for-profit policy fully competitive in the market can require manually adding a large number of endorsements — sometimes 60 or more. This adds considerable time and administrative complexity to the underwriting process and increases the risk of oversight compared to competitors that offer more streamlined policy forms. New business production goals can also be challenging to achieve in a soft market. The company maintains a conservative underwriting and pricing strategy while competitors may offer broader coverage at lower pricing. Ease of doing business suffers since we are required to ask for more information than the competition. Workloads are heavy and support from service staff can be limited at times, which can contribute to longer working hours. Training is relatively brief, with an expectation to reach full productivity within a few months. The culture can feel somewhat traditional and highly performance-driven, with a strong emphasis on metrics and results.

The company respects work-life balance, which was a major plus. My manager was supportive and approachable, and the team often participated in happy hours and social activities that helped build camaraderie.

The role was not what I was told it would be during the interview process. I was led to believe that I would be working on a broader range of legal and coverage issues, including long-tail bodily injury, property damage, Coverage B issues, and environmental or toxic tort claims. Instead, I was placed exclusively on construction defect claims—an area I specifically said I was not interested in. As an attorney, I was hoping for more legal analysis and coverage strategy, not repetitive claim handling. The hiring process was also disorganized and dragged out; I interviewed in December, received a verbal offer in January, and didn’t get an official written offer until February. Compensation was also lower than expected, especially compared to law firm salaries. Overall, the experience left me feeling misled and dissatisfied.