USAA Risk Analyst reviews

Whatever the recruiter or HR is leading you to believe, below is my experience with the so-called "employer of choice": 1. Most new leaders within USAA are characterized by an alarming lack of genuineness. Rather than embodying authenticity and transparency, the leaders seem to operate within a framework of superficiality and self-interest. Their actions and decisions often appear calculated, driven more by the desire to maintain a positive image rather than a sincere commitment to the well-being of the team or the organization. For instance, we laid off three people on our team due to "budgetary constraints" only to hire four additional headcounts that are more expensive with no explanation. This lack of genuine leadership creates an atmosphere of distrust and skepticism among team members, who perceive the leadership's words and gestures as mere posturing rather than a true reflection of their intentions. Genuine concerns of harassment are often ignored by leadership and HR. Leaders speak about "taking care of the team" but never truly deliver on their promises. The absence of authenticity in leadership undermines the establishment of meaningful connections, stifles open communication, and often leads to favoritism and a hostile work environment. 2. Additionally, an unsettling undercurrent of subtle retaliation, discrimination, and hypocrisy erodes the foundation of a healthy work environment. Employees who express dissenting opinions or challenge the status quo often find themselves subjected to covert forms of retaliation, such as exclusion from critical projects, increased scrutiny, and subtle undermining of their contributions. For instance, a monthly pulse survey asks for candid feedback and strongly emphasizes the survey's anonymity. However, several times, team members were warned or retaliated for being critical (but truthful). Discrimination, whether based on disability, race, or other factors, manifests in insidious ways, creating an atmosphere where some individuals are marginalized or denied equal opportunities, as evidenced by the leadership's comment that "remote workers are unlikely to get promoted or have the same opportunity as hybrid workers." What compounds these issues is the glaring hypocrisy within the leadership, as they espouse values of fairness and equality while simultaneously engaging in or disregarding discriminatory practices. Facing potential "disparate impact" lawsuits, leadership changed their stance on remote workers, such that they are now "eligible" for equal treatment. However, this policy change aims to prevent lawsuits, and remote workers are still treated as second-class citizens with little chance to move up or even make a lateral change. There was a military third-generation combat veteran who suffered from PTSD and lived 250 miles from the campus who was forced to quit because leaders were more concerned about their bonuses than "serving those who have served." This military employee's plea made headlines internally and was shared on several social media channels. USAA tried its best to keep this from becoming a PR crisis, but really, it's just the tip of the iceberg. Several other military officer-employees with whom I work closely were denied promotion because of their circumstances (that had nothing to do with their ability to perform). This toxic cocktail of subtle retaliation, discrimination, and hypocrisy not only undermines the principles of diversity and inclusion and the company's commitment to the military community but also erodes the trust and morale of the workforce, impeding the organization's potential for genuine growth and progress. No wonder many CoSAs scored rock bottom on employee sentiments and DEI. 3. The executive spending practices within the organization reveal a concerning pattern of extravagance and wastefulness. Despite emphasizing cost-efficiency and fiscal responsibility, executives seem to indulge in lavish expenditures that are difficult to justify in the wake of record CAT losses. Extravagant business trips to attend a single meeting (which can be perfectly done over Zoom), opulent corporate events, and unnecessary executive perks contribute to a sense of financial irresponsibility, especially when such expenditures contrast sharply with cost-cutting measures implemented at lower organizational levels. This wasteful use of resources undermines the organization's financial stability and sends a demoralizing message to employees facing tighter budgets and resource constraints in their respective departments. Several key departments are working around the clock because of staffing shortages.

Micromanaging Toxic work culture Toxic employees Contractors treated like “the help”