(Actuarial) Managers and consultants are great, but company policy puts profit over people.
Pros
My salary was competitive, and my benefits were good. I had a lot of PTO (22 days), but only because of my level and having worked over five years. Most of the people at the company are hard-working and respectful. Immediate supervisors (Principals) listen to employees and do their best to manage well. If you have ideas about a project, your manager will likely let you run with it. If you are early in your career, Oliver Wyman Actuarial might be a good place to spend a few years.
Cons
Decision-makers are focused on profit, not people or relationships. Nick Studer is excellent, as are managers and consultants. But the plot gets lost somewhere between, and most discussions and incentives are cold and corporate. These decision-makers also seem not to trust employees, resulting in friction and administrative work to prove your value and explain your actions. Technology, for the most part, is restricted and needs to be coordinated better. There are spots where the tech is efficient and flexible, but these are the exceptions. You are likely to be denied if you ever need a notable exception. Decision-makers are very nervous about making exceptions out of fear of having to make exceptions for everyone. Decision-makers do not respect employee contributions. I worked at Oliver Wyman Actuarial for six years. I made significant technological contributions. But two weeks into my 60-day notice period (my contract included a 60-day notice of intent to leave), I was fired without warning. The notice period was not paid out (which is common), nor was my bonus or any severance paid. The company ended the long and fruitful relationship by aggressively burning the bridge. Their decision negatively impacted clients and employees because I was not given time to transition projects carefully. If you have experience and more options for where to work, you'll likely find a better company elsewhere.
